|
Krailor posted:The quick and dirty answer is to just get the largest Vizio E series TV you can afford/fit in your house. Related, Amazon had the Vizio E600i-b3 for $600, fulfilled by TigerDirect, a couple days ago. Not sure if it's still going.
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:45 |
|
|
So would 1080p be the way to go or is 1440p a thing in tv's too? Also do tv's like monitors have different size ratios? or is 16:9 standard for tv's? Is 1080p better than 1080i? Also I absolutely hate Automotion plus garbage, is all that stuff standard, I am super sensitive to the soap opera affect and would rather it be gone completely. finally I was hoping to put my tv on a swivel mount so it can be watched from teh kitchen or the living room, is this mounting scheme standard or is this a whole new can of worms? edit: One more question, a lot of tv's I am looking at seem to have an "effective refresh rate" of 240Hz, I am assuming this is some kind of deceptive marketing and its not really 240Hz? Knifegrab fucked around with this message at 20:13 on May 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Knifegrab posted:So would 1080p be the way to go or is 1440p a thing in tv's too? Also do tv's like monitors have different size ratios? or is 16:9 standard for tv's? Is 1080p better than 1080i? Tv's go from 1080p to UHD ~4k. There arn't 1440p tv's and yes 16:9 is standard. Motion interpolation (automotion) can be disabled in most if not all tv's. You can get a tv with a swivel base already or wall mount it with an adjustable mount. Effective refresh rate is usually double actual refresh rate (though not always). A tv that claims 240hz effective is probably 120hz native. A 120hz effective rate tv is probably 60hz.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:Tv's go from 1080p to UHD ~4k. There arn't 1440p tv's and yes 16:9 is standard. Awesome thanks for all the info. SO I am looking at this tv, in the 70 inch area: http://www.amazon.com/VIZIO-E65-C3-65-Inch-1080p-Smart/dp/B00VIMIV6E/ref=sr_1_10?s=tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1431457757&sr=1-10 But it seems this thread suggests: http://www.amazon.com/VIZIO-E600i-B...=E70-C3+70-Inch Is there any reason why I would want one over the other? They both seem like solid TV's. Also, I might actually be overthinkning my size allowance in my living room, so I might have to shift down to something along the lines of 50 inches. WHen I look at 50 inch I notice a much smaller price gap between 1080p and UHD, at that point is it worth it to go for the 4k or is it always just pissing money away?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Knifegrab posted:Awesome thanks for all the info. The top TV is the 2015 version while the bottom is the 2014 version. There's almost no discernible difference between them so just get whichever is cheaper. If the diff in price between 4k and 1080p is negligible then there's certainly no harm in getting a 4k set, just make sure that it has a HDMI2 port so you can actually hook up a device capable of outputting 4k whenever they're available.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Don't forget about HDCP 2.2 as well. That's the next "All your early adopter poo poo is gonna be broken" item. It requires a hardware piece as well so there aren't going to be any firmware upgrades to add it to a 4k TV that doesn't come from the factory with it. This is the main thing holding me back from updating my Denon 2310ci receiver. HDCP 2.2 support is still very bad across AVRs.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Awesome, thanks for all the tips guys. Is there anyway to figure out how the viewing angle is for these tv's. I would like something that I can ideally still see at side angle, and I know some tv's in the past have had problems with that. Also why Vizio? I thought Panasonic was leading the tv front. Also someone was saying that 1080p content will look worse on a 4k monitor than on a 1080p monitor. Is that true? Is the upscaling problematic? Knifegrab fucked around with this message at 23:28 on May 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Input lag and refresh rates are important-ish and I will one day be upgrading to a 4k TV but not yet. I'm very interested in this tv (despite the curve) because I am also looking for the best picture for under $2000 (maybe $2500) Should I buy it, though? It seems to be a 2014 model and won't the 2015 models be out soon? (and won't this be on sale soon?)
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
That TV owns and it is already massively on sale. That site is pretty terrible but buydig had it down to 2200 as does Cleveland Plasma with no tax and I think free shipping and warranty. Frys had a crazy 1500 dollar sale one day but I guess that was mostly on open box or returns. The 4k sets are coming, however they're starting at 4k for 55".
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Avian Pneumonia posted:Input lag and refresh rates are important-ish and I will one day be upgrading to a 4k TV but not yet. Best picture at that price range is going to be an OLED or a plasma if you can find one. Plasma will have better motion but the oled will have better contrast and blacks.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
I'd probably care more about motion than contrast, really. What are plasma options? They still make plasmas?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
Avian Pneumonia posted:I'd probably care more about motion than contrast, really. What are plasma options? They still make plasmas? No, nobody still makes them. But you can still locate a LG, or an F5300 or H5000 sometimes. Or find low hour ones on ebay. Bestbuy openbox is a good place to look.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
Knifegrab posted:Awesome, thanks for all the tips guys. Viewing angles have been uniformly decent for a good few years now on LCD sets, it was mainly low grade panels that suffered from crappy viewing angles. Sit in front of your set though as y'know, that's the point. :P Panasonic are a fantastic company making some fantastic sets but Vizio make similarly fantastic sets for less money so... And 1080p content on a 4k screen will look decent enough but will have to be 'stretched' by the scaler in the TV itself and basically be made twice as big. It shouldn't be an issue unless the scaler in the set is crap (which I have no clue about) but ideally any sort of scaling should be avoided as it degrades picture quality. Ideally you'd feed your TV its native resolution at all times for best quality (1080p for a 1080p set, 4k for a 4k set) and you can do this with an external scaler but $$$$.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
At this point in time, I think we can put some hard and fast rules into place. Budget under $1000? Buy a Vizio. Budget over $1000 and 55" is large enough for you? Buy LG OLED Things just get a little fuzzier when you have a budget over $1000 and want larger than 55".
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 13:32
|
|
|
sellouts posted:That TV owns and it is already massively on sale. That site is pretty terrible but buydig had it down to 2200 as does Cleveland Plasma with no tax and I think free shipping and warranty. Yeah, the day I posted that I think it was down to $1649 or thereabouts but I guess that was a one day deal too. EDIT: $1759 TITTIEKISSER69 fucked around with this message at 13:37 on May 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 13:35
|
|
|
Wilford Cutlery posted:Yeah, the day I posted that I think it was down to $1649 or thereabouts but I guess that was a one day deal too. Let me just buy a tv off the sketchiest yahoo website i can find.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
Yeah that just... That just does not look like a place I'd want to give my credit card information.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
When you click Add To Cart it takes you to the Amazon listing, $2499
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
Can someone explain what OLED is in comparison to LED and why it seems like everyone wants one? Also for mounting my tv to a swivel mount, is it best if I just hire someone to do it? Also are most modern tv's wifi enabled or will I need an ethernet cord?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Knifegrab posted:Can someone explain what OLED is in comparison to LED and why it seems like everyone wants one? Wider color range, faster response time, better viewing angles, use less power, and do not use a backlight so they're capable of actual black because they can turn off.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Knifegrab posted:Can someone explain what OLED is in comparison to LED and why it seems like everyone wants one? Oled is a self lit pixel so it can turn completely off. Similiar to a plasma but better. LCD works by having a backlight behind a clear panel that changes colors. LCD's cannon get perfect blacks because the backlight is always on or can only be turned off in large sections.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Technically the LG ones are a backlight, technically. The reason why I say that is LG isn't using multicolored LEDs, they are using white LEDs with color filters (better yield and you don't get uneven aging issues.) The best way to describe OLED to someone is say "imagine a FALD backlight TV, but in this case each pixel is its own isolated source of light. In an LCD panel, there's a backlight that shines through a layer of crystals that are themselves behind a color filter. The crystals twist to permit light to shine through or block light. They aren't perfect blockers though which is why you have both viewing angle and elevated black level issues. In an OLED TV, each pixel is a source of light that can be completely turned off. That pixel can be an LED that's creates a specific color of light or it can be an LED that's white but behind a color filter. The upshot is you get perfect blacks. If the pixel is off, it's off. There's no backlight bleed like you can get from an LCD and you don't have to have tricky local dimming algorithms that may cause flashlighting. It also surpasses the black levels of plasma as there's no cell that has to have a pre-charge which emits a tiny level of light. The downside right now is the technology is more expensive for now and gets a lot more expensive as DPI and panel size increase due to yield issues. It can also suffer from "burn in" like plasma, but likely not to the same extreme extent (also one of the reasons LG is using white only LEDs.) They CAN be dimmer than an LCD set, but LG combats that as well by having a pure white subpixel to boost overall light level on peak white content. It really is the future of display technology.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
And who is the front runner for OLED's? And at what size do they become price prohibitive? How new is the tech and when do we expect to see price drops? It sounds fascinating, and by far the best solution for me because I would like a super wide viewing angle.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
LG is more or less the only game in town right now. And prices have already fallen DRAMATICALLY. All sizes 55" and 1080p, all LG. 2013 $15,000 2014 $3,500 2015 $2,500
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:The best way to describe OLED to someone is say "imagine a FALD backlight TV, but in this case each pixel is its own isolated source of light. That someone's response will be, "what the gently caress is a FALD backlight tv?"
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Cool, it definitely seems price prohibitive right now so maybe in a couple years it will be reasonable. Also I do not like curved displays.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
The other catch is they only come in 55" right now.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
They come in 55", 65" and 77". Flat and curved. 55" is 1080p (2.5k) but the new ones are 4k. The curve of the 55" is really minimal and it has great viewing angles. I hate curved TVs and you really don't notice it that much.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:The other catch is they only come in 55" right now. That was the 2014 model. There are lots of different 2015 models and shapes and sizes. The 2013 model also had a flat model.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:LG is more or less the only game in town right now. And prices have already fallen DRAMATICALLY. I was just  at OLED prices. They're dropping crazy fast and I can see them being at parity with LCDs soon enough, but probably not so soon with my bigass projected screen.However for right now, I'm looking for something to recommend to my parents - around 40-45", budget is "as cheap as possible" without being complete poo poo. I'll probably be connected to an HTPC of some sort since they want to watch a lot of online content. 3D, 120fps or other bullshit isn't necessary. The popular models seem to be LG 42LB5500, Samsung UE40H6200, Sony Bravia KDL-40R455B, and Panasonic TX-42A400E. There's no Vizio here. Are any of those particularly good/bad, or should I dig deeper?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
I know the rule of thumb is to go with a Vizio if the budget is less than $1k, but I just bought a Sony KDL-55W950B. It has the lowest input lag of any HDTV (17ms), passive 3D, and decent enough sound to last me until I buy a soundbar. I was gonna go with the 2015 model that comes out in a few weeks, but it has active 3D at 120 Hz, which isn't something I want. I tried to convince myself to get the Vizio but it just didn't look anywhere near as good as the Sony.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Yeah that was my question, really. The 55" LG looks amazing but won't the 2015 models be out soon and won't it then be cheaper?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
They wont be cheaper. LG is keeping the EC9300 for 2015 at its same $3499 retail
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
sellouts posted:They come in 55", 65" and 77". Flat and curved. 55" is 1080p (2.5k) but the new ones are 4k. Oops, I meant to say 55" and up. 42" is still a really popular size for people, and used to be the break point where you could actually get a fully featured TV. Bloodplay it again posted:I know the rule of thumb is to go with a Vizio if the budget is less than $1k, but I just bought a Sony KDL-55W950B. It has the lowest input lag of any HDTV (17ms), passive 3D, and decent enough sound to last me until I buy a soundbar. I was gonna go with the 2015 model that comes out in a few weeks, but it has active 3D at 120 Hz, which isn't something I want. I tried to convince myself to get the Vizio but it just didn't look anywhere near as good as the Sony. That's not a mistake or anything. With a model number like W950 I assume that's one of Sony's top end TVs, so yeah that's going to be very nice. Apparently Vizio's new E series screens are very good, but they are still ultimately the budget brand and the thread recommendations are based on value.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:That's not a mistake or anything. With a model number like W950 I assume that's one of Sony's top end TVs, so yeah that's going to be very nice. It's not even close to their top TV. It's a nice TV, but xbr is far better in terms of panel quality and backlighting technology. Again, nice TV, but they sell $5000+ tvs, their sub 1000 panel isn't scratching the surface
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Any brands make just a regular-rear end TV without all this smart poo poo I'll never use?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
88h88 posted:Any brands make just a regular-rear end TV without all this smart poo poo I'll never use? You're not saving much if anything, and probably would end up with an inferior TV.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
88h88 posted:Any brands make just a regular-rear end TV without all this smart poo poo I'll never use? You arn't saving anything. A tv without smart functions will be a lower end tv overall, lower end panel, build quality etc.. The R&D on smart poo poo is all done and paid for.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:That's not a mistake or anything. With a model number like W950 I assume that's one of Sony's top end TVs, so yeah that's going to be very nice. The W series is mainly average except for the W950B, I think. I've seen the W800 for $200 less, but it doesn't have 3D and I don't think the screen is edge lit. Dunno if it's an IPS panel, either. I wanted to get an XBR, but 4K at 55" isn't worth the extra $500 IMO. The LG OLED is the only other 1080 set I was even considering, but the Sony is half the price. My next TV after this is absolutely going to be OLED. I'd take the 55" OLED over an 85" 4K, even if they were the same price.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:45 |
|
|
Many people were disappointed with the W950b because it came after the truly excellent W900a and couldn't match it in black levels or color accuracy. The W900a was the last 'top of the line' 1080p TV that Sony produced. I don't know if it's true or not, but supposedly the W900a was originally going to be an XBR set. However, Sony decided at the 11th hour that the 2013 XBR TVs had to be 4k only so it was re-branded.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:12
|
|