|
codo27 posted:I want 4K. Now. I see the Vizio 50" at Futureshop for 929, seems like I cant go wrong. I went and got four of the $800 55-inch HiSense 4K I linked, I'll let people know how those are.
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 03:53 |
|
|
Target had this "Element" one for $449, but I couldn't live without at least 120hz now. I just had this great vision though of those 4 TVs all together connected to a million dollar PC. I don't think you could get enough Titan Z's in a rig to power 16k
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
codo27 posted:I want 4K. Now. I see the Vizio 50" at Futureshop for 929, seems like I cant go wrong. My Vizio 55" P series will render 2560x1440 but only at 30hz. It'll display 4K @ 60hz and 1080p @ 120hz though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Oh wow I hadn't thought about that. Will I have to get something super high end to do 120hz at 4K?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
codo27 posted:Oh wow I hadn't thought about that. Will I have to get something super high end to do 120hz at 4K? This would require a display with displayport 1.3, which there are none of yet (that I know of). They may be out later this year, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
So if I get 4k I have to watch it in ultra slow mo 60hz? I guess I'll do something else with my money for now like pay some bills or something stupid like that
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
I have a spending problem. I have a 42" but looking to go up in size. Any reason I should not get this? It seems like the smart features are actually worthwhile. But in the end yeah a roku or amazon stick is probably the best bet. I assume a new one of both is around the corner. 50" Samsung UN50H6350 1080p 120Hz Smart LED HDTV $599 + Free Shipping
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Dicks posted:I have a spending problem. I have a 42" but looking to go up in size. Any reason I should not get this? It seems like the smart features are actually worthwhile. But in the end yeah a roku or amazon stick is probably the best bet. I assume a new one of both is around the corner. I'd just get the Roku and move your couch closer to the TV or vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
codo27 posted:So if I get 4k I have to watch it in ultra slow mo 60hz? I guess I'll do something else with my money for now like pay some bills or something stupid like that Even then I think you have to have hdmi 2.0 which still isn't widely proliferated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
codo27 posted:So if I get 4k I have to watch it in ultra slow mo 60hz? I guess I'll do something else with my money for now like pay some bills or something stupid like that The panels themselves are still typically 120hz or 240hz so you get the inherent benefits of motion resolution and proper pulldown. But these are generally media consumption devices; all of the outputs are geared towards consoles and media players which typically won't output more than 60fps. BonoMan posted:Even then I think you have to have hdmi 2.0 which still isn't widely proliferated. Most of the mainstream tvs from last year do have hdmi 2.0, the only lovely thing is the bandwidth limitation on current hdcp 2.2 chipsets that prevents full chroma at 4k too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
The new UHD Blu-Ray spec doesn't even call for full chroma. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Next-Gen posted:The panels themselves are still typically 120hz or 240hz so you get the inherent benefits of motion resolution and proper pulldown. But these are generally media consumption devices; all of the outputs are geared towards consoles and media players which typically won't output more than 60fps. I meant on graphics cards.. But still good to know thanks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Dicks posted:I have a spending problem. I have a 42" but looking to go up in size. Any reason I should not get this? It seems like the smart features are actually worthwhile. But in the end yeah a roku or amazon stick is probably the best bet. I assume a new one of both is around the corner. I was looking at this myself. Someone sent me that as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
I'm trying to find a reason not to but it does have quite a bit of nifty features. I think USB ports are standard these days but it's a nice feature. How are the generic ones on these TVs? Curious how much longer it'll be going for. Amazon reviews are good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Dicks posted:I'm trying to find a reason not to but it does have quite a bit of nifty features. I think USB ports are standard these days but it's a nice feature. How are the generic ones on these TVs? Curious how much longer it'll be going for. Amazon reviews are good. I have had 3 smart TVs and the best streaming on them isn't even half as good as the worst dedicated streaming device I've had. I have a dedicated streaming device for every TV even though they are all smart TVs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
The 6350 is a good midrange set. You won't be disappointed by it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Fremry posted:I have had 3 smart TVs and the best streaming on them isn't even half as good as the worst dedicated streaming device I've had. I have a dedicated streaming device for every TV even though they are all smart TVs. Sony W850B smart TV Netflix is faster than a Roku Stick!  (Roku sticks are lovely.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
I really wish that Roku had access to Google Play Music since they have access to Google Play Movies. That would make getting a Roku 4 (or whatever they will eventually call it) a no brainer for my main tv. For now it's the TV's app for Amazon Prime Instant Video and Chromecast for everything else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
ddogflex posted:Sony W850B smart TV Netflix is faster than a Roku Stick! I haven't had a Roku stick. I have a Roku 1, a Roku 3 and a Fire TV Stick. The Roku 1 is sluggish on the menus, but a crap load more stable when streaming than my Panasonic, Vizio or Samsung smart TVs. The Fire TV Stick and Roku 3 aren't even worth comparing to the built in Smart TV functionality on any of them, because it's not even fair how much better they work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
Looking for a good wall mount for a 50" with lots of movement/tilt options that'll still sit as close to the wall as possible. Do most require at least two studs? I know the first one does Looking at OmniMount OC120FM Full Motion Mount for 43-Inch to 70-Inch Televisions https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DLKE7OQ/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_5Ze6ub0GMK89C And one of thee locally for $75 30"-55" Articulating Flat-Panel TV Wall Mount https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00FGATUCI/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_c4e6ub0M8VET8 Nostalgia4Dogges fucked around with this message at 11:48 on Feb 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
I don't know if I'd do a full motion mount on one stud.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 13:31
|
|
|
Yeah I double checked and I do in fact have studs close enough together. I ended up with the Samsung UN50H6350. Apparently it's vesa 200x200
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
I'm thinking of buying a 1080p TV and I can't decide on the size. Looking at either 32 or 39/40. Right but we have a 19" TV so anything would be an improvement over that. Would be using it for Netflix and movies and maybe to connect a computer to occasionally. Currently we sit 8' from the 19" now but we will be moving somewhere and do not know what a future viewing distance might be. Bigger TV better? Is the size different between 32 and 40 that significant?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Massasoit posted:I'm thinking of buying a 1080p TV and I can't decide on the size. Looking at either 32 or 39/40. Right but we have a 19" TV so anything would be an improvement over that. get the bigger one
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Can the human eye even distinguish the difference between 1080p and 720p at a distance of ten feet if the screen is less than 46 inches? I have always been told "46 inches for 1080p" as a mantra.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:Can the human eye even distinguish the difference between 1080p and 720p at a distance of ten feet if the screen is less than 46 inches? Probably not, but I doubt there's any 720p screens worth buying anymore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:Can the human eye even distinguish the difference between 1080p and 720p at a distance of ten feet if the screen is less than 46 inches? If it's in good condition. Or sometimes even if it's in marginal condition. This applies to both the TV and your eyes. You should probably give your eyes a chance rather than take the advice of hastily made Internet charts unexamined. Keep in mind that an independent TV shop will be hard to find in many places and chain shops usually make TVs as vibrant and high-contrast as their market segment demands, blowing the image fidelity to Hell. Also there haven't been good 720p screens since people got the idea of producing 1366x768 screens in any quantity. So really any 720p screens. Yeah you pretty much shouldn't buy less than actual 1920x1080 1080p even at 15 inches now. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Feb 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:Can the human eye even distinguish the difference between 1080p and 720p at a distance of ten feet if the screen is less than 46 inches? Years ago that was true, like in 2007 I bought a 720p 42" plasma. Overall the value much, much better than paying for 1080p. Now 720p TVs are often low end sets, so regardless of the resolution the TV itself is a poor value.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Massasoit posted:
56% more surface area. 40 is also small. Consider 50 (or more) it isn't that much more expensive than a small tv now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Lookin' for a 40-42" 120Hz (real 120Hz) in the 500 range. Refurbed is fine. This will be used as a client reference monitor that's mounted on my office wall... so while it doesn't have to be reference quality... "not poo poo color" would be preferable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Well look at that 40" Sony KDL40R350B 1080p 60Hz LED HDTV $278 - http://slickdeals.net/share/iphone_app/fp/146202
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
I gave my 720p set to my parents and can definitely see a drop in quality when I watch something there. And the old saying goes "No one regrets buying a bigger TV" is true IMO. I got a 65" in a living room that's no wider than 13 feet and I still love it.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
TV upgraded. http://imgur.com/Qgqz9PW
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
I'm looking at replacing my beaten 10 year old 32" TV in the living room. So, I can get a 50" 4K set (P502UI-B1E) from Vizio for $700, where I'll have no way to consume content for it until UHD Blu-Ray comes out, or the 60" 1080p E Series set for $780. I'm completely conflicted. Most of my viewing is either sports or movies via netflix/amazon/downloads. I'm assuming we're a far ways off from 4K sports broadcasts. My internet is capped at 300GB/month thanks to comcast, so 4K netflix is out of the question until Google Fiber rolls out here in 2 years from now. Am I crazy to skip over the 4k set for a 45% increase in screen size?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
Viper_3000 posted:I'm looking at replacing my beaten 10 year old 32" TV in the living room. So, I can get a 50" 4K set (P502UI-B1E) from Vizio for $700, where I'll have no way to consume content for it until UHD Blu-Ray comes out, or the 60" 1080p E Series set for $780. I'm completely conflicted. Nope. The increase in size is something you will value everyday, while 4k not only doesn't have any content, but the idea of 4k being any better than 1080p is dubious at best. 4k reminds me of the years of fabricated contrast numbers. LCD TV with 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio! (Actual number 400:1) More pixels does not mean better, especially when you can't distinguish individual pixels on a 1080p TV. Also, the E-Series has a better picture than the P series. You'd be paying more for a smaller TV and a worse picture for more pixels that you can't take advantage of and the most critical of people can't tell the difference between.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Fremry posted:you can't distinguish individual pixels on a 1080p TV. Substantiate your claim. No one is arguing with you about "4K". 720p content CAN look better at 2160pK because unlike 1080p (1.5x scale) it's an even multiple of 720p (3x scale), but you're right in that this probably isn't worth paying more for a smaller, lower color quality panel. A better reason for Viper_3000 to skip UHD panels for the moment is that the protocols and signal density that the panel's computer can handle aren't rec.2020 reference-ready, let alone actual 3840x2160 full-color-density PC-style-input ready, and at least the 1080p display would continue to be useful for longer (and if it wasn't it's probably easier to resell a 60" TV to one of the neighbors later on than a 50" model). But no part of a comparison between 3840x2160 panels and 1920x1080 panels made you say that even the 1080 panel is useless; in fact it wasn't even relevant - and you did anyway. I could make an argument rooted in why above-1080p displays are hitting everything from laptops to cell phones, but I want to hear from the person who made the statement whether they have anything worth countering. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Feb 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Fremry posted:Nope. The increase in size is something you will value everyday, while 4k not only doesn't have any content, but the idea of 4k being any better than 1080p is dubious at best. 4k reminds me of the years of fabricated contrast numbers. LCD TV with 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio! (Actual number 400:1) People said the same thing about the comparison between 720p and 1080p in the beginning of HD. 4k is absolutely better no question, and the industry is going to eventually shift to that. The big problem I see, especially having worked in the film industry, is that most things now are done on a 2k DI and aren't shot/finished at 4k anyway. The real benefit would be all of the 4k remasters of things shot on film that have been done in the past 10 years or so. 4k + No 3:2 pull down anymore is about as close to a movie theatre in your home that I'll think we'll see. Basically, what I'm saying is that I can see that 4k is coming, I'm just unsure that it's worth the money to upgrade now vs waiting for 3-4 more years for the content and delivery options to be there. Probably will wind up with that 60" E series since the panel in the P series isn't as good, and will look at another new TV in 3-5 years when content delivery/standards are sorted and the technology is cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
What's even more damning is the amount of digitally shot content that's less than 4k RIGHT NOW. Just about everything in the theaters at the moment was captured in 2.8k. Even recent blockbusters like Mockingjay were only captured at 2.8k. That stuff will never be anything more than an upscale.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Fremry posted:Nope. The increase in size is something you will value everyday, while 4k not only doesn't have any content, but the idea of 4k being any better than 1080p is dubious at best. 4k reminds me of the years of fabricated contrast numbers. LCD TV with 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio! (Actual number 400:1) You can certainly tell the difference between 720p, 1080p and 4k but largely dependent on the size of the screen. 4k is available. Netflix and Amazon are both streaming in 4k. The selection is slim but all new shows and movies will be filmed in it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 03:53 |
|
|
Tab8715 posted:The selection is slim but all new shows and movies will be filmed in it. Again, not true. The the vast majority of stuff produced today is still less than 4k. Filming with 4k cameras is becoming more common, but 4k workflows are still lagging and there still a ton of stuff being shot digitally in less than 4k. 2.8k is still a very popular format to capture in. There is not some industry wide cutover to 4k. There's still a significant cost and time advantage in working in 2k and those concerns are going to trump for now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 07:21
|
|