Pros + 1080p Gaming @ 120 Hz
+ Good scaling of "Normal HD" content to 4k
+ Ultra HD 4K Resolution!
+ Vibrant colors and accuracy
+ Viewing angles
+ Picture quality
+ Thin design
Cons - Low quality speakers
- No DisplayPort Input
- HDMI 1.4 limited to 30 Hz @ 4k.
Summary Up front I'll say that the best use for this is as a computer monitor, or a hybrid computer monitor and television. If you want a pure television, there just isn't much 4K content out there, and they're still working on newer HDMI standards that will allow faster refreshes of 4K video. If you're thinking of buying a 4K set because you want something that won't be outdated 5 years from now, you're probably better off anyway just paying half as much or so for a decent 1080p set and then replacing it later when all the standards have settled down.
This really shines as a computer monitor, though. If you have a graphics card that was made within the last few years, there's a very good chance it can support 4K resolutions (people often don't do this with 4K sets, instead they have a single graphics card run a higher resolution across several monitors. But it gave the card makers a reason to support resolutions on this level).
Once you're up at 4K, things look really fantastic and you can fit a huge amount of stuff on a single screen. This makes a BIG difference if you're spending a lot of time dealing with things like programming and spreadsheets, where you can save a lot of time by having all the information you need visible at once rather than hopping between windows or tabs to get to what you need.
On my particular set, the color looks good and the lighting is very even.
I personally *like* the fact that this isn't a "Smart TV". I prefer that my TV focus on being a very good TV so that all the money is going into making a good screen, and not toward supporting other things like Netflix. When I want to watch Netflix, I can hook up a computer, a PS3, a blue-ray player, or a (just released) Chromecast and I'll have Netflix. I like my TV better when it's kinda like a toaster. I turn it on and off and it just does the one thing it does VERY well. No fuss. If some new service comes along as the next big thing, I don't want to have to mess around with updating my television to get access to it when I could just update a computer or a gaming console or something. That's my personal view, though. I'm sure others prefer just doing things straight through their televisions.
The PS3, btw, claims that this is 3D-capable. I've seem people online say that all 4K televisions are theoretically 3D-capable, because they have enough pixels to create the effect, but I haven't tested that at all because I don't have the passive 3D glasses I'd need.
The 30hz refresh rate at 4K isn't that big a deal, honestly. At least to me. Refresh rate is only really an issue when things are in motion. You can put so much on the screen at once that you don't need to move things around a whole lot. I wouldn't try playing Battlefield 4 at 30hz, but something slower-paced like Civilization V would probably be fine. With games where it's bothersome, I'd just drop to a lower resolution for a little while. It's not as if a game is going to look terrible in 1080p. A lot of the stuff you already watch on the Internet, like typical Youtube videos, are already running at 30hz to save on bandwidth, so the difference isn't that significant to most people so long as you're not playing an FPS game or something.
I have this in the same room with both my computer and my gaming consoles and I still have my old monitor hooked up as well. It works out really nicely. I can use this when I'm doing something that benefits from the huge and very detailed screen. If I want to mess around on the Internet while watching a movie, I just do the computer stuff on the regular monitor and just switch source on the TV over to my movie. Same thing for playing video games.
For me, with this device serving as both a fantastic computer monitor and a very good television, it offers a lot of value. Using it this way, it's absolutely worth it. If you were purely going to use it as a television, though, there's a good chance that it won't have enough to offer over a regular 1080p set that it'd be worth the price premium. This really comes down to how you want to use it, I meet best price for the Seiki SE50UY04 from recommendation at: 120ledhdtvs.blogspot.com/p/seiki-digital-se50uy04_19.html
Great TV, High Recommend!
Pros 4K at 3840x2160p , stunning picture resolution & very good quality when calibrated.
Excellent for viewing and editing high resolution photos and video.
Accepts true 120Hz at 1080p (not fake 120Hz)
Great for PC as desktop and gaming display.
Cons Use the $3700 you saved not buying the Sony 4K set for an upconverting 4K Receiver for 1080p sources.
It's an LED LCD, not an OLED or Plasma. At $1199 you'll have to wait years before those technologies work their way down to this 4K pricepoint.
Summary Open letter to the Cnet Reviewer:
I think your rating/review is plain wrong as you totally skipped using 4K upconverting receivers and 4K upconverting blu-ray players to drive this 4K TV all the time, with any source upconverted! Also, high resolution photos look spectacular on this set where you can truly see the detail of your photos...
You do a lot of good analysis, but overly weight it with 1080p content comparisons. it's like saying a rocketship sucks running on unleaded gas... totally useless and laughable
Plus, the pricepoint alone deserves another point, it's 1/3rd the price of the Sony 4K and skips the gimmicks, leaving you thousands of bucks to pay for a good 4K upconverting receiver and source.
Please rewrite with some facts on using a 4K upconverting BluRay player or 4K upconverting receiver (dozens available) to review in comparison to 1080p LCD TV's (can't compare to plasma or oled, totally different tech), and feel free to add a couple of stars back then as it holds up well.
You can send everything to it in 4K, then compare the quality of 4K conversion in the receivers you select.
Also, don't you think people buy 50" sets because they don't have the room for 60" or larger sets? It's the right size for regular viewing distances in small living rooms, and sure while the 84" Sony might be nice, most people buying sets in this price range don't have a hanger for a living room and 10' doorway to push an 84" set thru...
Recommending any 1080p LCD screen over this 4K LCD set is just as ridiculous and backward thinking as would be recommending a 480p 32" tube TV when 50" LCD HDTV's just came out, but I suspect many reviewers did and never regretted misguiding readers ...
Same story here, you got only half the story right, as if 2013 was 1999 all over again...
I am not biased to 4K and you did a pretty good writeup, but as I thought the 480p Trinitron tubes back then were very good with DVD's in comparison to the first 1080p LCD's, it's just the old tech was going nowhere as HDTV's were replacing them anyway.
More Obvious sources of High Resolution material you forgot in your review...
Why also didn't you use millions of high resolution photos to display, and compare to the 1080p sets?
You have tons of DSLR reviews, did you forgot they take 4K + photos?
Likewise, did you forget to read the manual- it has a Photo viewer? Do you think it's for
playing 2K photos from 1995 only?
Looking at your title listed right now "Finally, a 4K TV you can actually afford. Too bad you'd never want it.",
it appears you never got any ad money from Seiki, so you are instead resorting
to trashing a decent enough 4K LCD just to generate clicks?
With big glaring ommissions from your review, I doubt you'd consider these facts to include at this point
in a revision as it doesn't fit the nature of your title.
Please consider re-writing your review and rating in relation with better than 1080p sources, or better yet, contact a company with real Red 5K and 4K footage, people might learn how this set punches far above the rating you gave it..