IHS: North America 4K TV Shipments Set To Surpass 1080p In 2017

[SteelCrysis]

http://hdguru.com/ihs-6m-4k-ultra-hdtvs-...a-in-2015/
Very interesting, I wonder if it will come to pass.

[SickBeast]

I hope so. Once it's more affordable I'm going with 4k. We need gpus like the GTX 980ti get cheaper as well though.

[RolloTheGreat]

I hope so. Once it's more affordable I'm going with 4k. We need gpus like the GTX 980ti get cheaper as well though.

Reason number 1 4K TVs are meaningless to me:

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

In my living room the closest seat to a TV is 10', most seats are 13-15' away. In my rec room, the closest seat is 9' away.

For the human eye to see the difference in 1080p and 4K on a 70" TV, the eye has to be less than 5' from the TV. Don't plan on moving my furniture to the middle of the room to see the difference.



For gaming and PC monitors I get 4K, it's beautiful. For TVs, 1080p is truly "good enough" because you can't see better. It's sort of like speakers that can produce sound outside the range human ears can hear. Better, but what's the point?

When Rollo Jr goes off to college and takes his 60" tv out of my rec room, I'll probably put my 60" 1080p down there and buy a 70" 4K for my living room. I don't plan on the resolution making a difference though.

[BenSkywalker]

Very interesting, I wonder if it will come to pass.

I would say almost certainly. Black Friday this year I saw many 4K sets in the ~$800 range, these weren't some POS Element or not quite proven Hisense displays- Samsung and Sharp were included- given they weren't the top of line displays by any means, but they weren't terrible. Two year more for price adjustments, I think it will be akin to 720p, before too long you won't see it on larger screens at all, and then it will vanish from the small ones too.

Reason number 1 4K TVs are meaningless to me:

I've seen those charts, and I realize my eyes are considerably better than average(20/10), but I was walking through Target the other day and could *easily* spot the difference between 1080P and 4K from thirty feet away on a pair of 55" screens- this wasn't even remotely close to being hard to tell, it was a whack between the eyes even at that distance. I think that some people confuse ability to discern individual pixels with the ability to notice vastly greater visual information. Hell, Anandtech and a bunch of the other rabid Mac fanboy sites ran lengthy articles about how we would never need greater then 300PPI on a phone, while clearly those displays now look pixelated and downright low rez compared to modern displays.

For TVs, 1080p is truly "good enough" because you can't see better.

I'd say compare an 8K display to 1080p from ten feet away. I'm willing to wager you would *easily* notice the difference. Outside of clarity issues, there are also depth perception advantages to having a high enough pixel density.

[RolloTheGreat]

Very interesting, I wonder if it will come to pass.

I would say almost certainly. Black Friday this year I saw many 4K sets in the ~$800 range, these weren't some POS Element or not quite proven Hisense displays- Samsung and Sharp were included- given they weren't the top of line displays by any means, but they weren't terrible. Two year more for price adjustments, I think it will be akin to 720p, before too long you won't see it on larger screens at all, and then it will vanish from the small ones too.

Reason number 1 4K TVs are meaningless to me:

I've seen those charts, and I realize my eyes are considerably better than average(20/10), but I was walking through Target the other day and could *easily* spot the difference between 1080P and 4K from thirty feet away on a pair of 55" screens- this wasn't even remotely close to being hard to tell, it was a whack between the eyes even at that distance. I think that some people confuse ability to discern individual pixels with the ability to notice vastly greater visual information. Hell, Anandtech and a bunch of the other rabid Mac fanboy sites ran lengthy articles about how we would never need greater then 300PPI on a phone, while clearly those displays now look pixelated and downright low rez compared to modern displays.

For TVs, 1080p is truly "good enough" because you can't see better.

I'd say compare an 8K display to 1080p from ten feet away. I'm willing to wager you would *easily* notice the difference. Outside of clarity issues, there are also depth perception advantages to having a high enough pixel density.

Still having trouble finding "You need this" type content on the 4K TV thing:

http://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/4k-ultra-...g-compared

I get that it's better, but I get all my content from my cable company. There's no 4K content, and I've read upscaled is not where you'll see difference.

[BoFox]

For the human eye to see the difference in 1080p and 4K on a 70" TV, the eye has to be less than 5' from the TV. Don't plan on moving my furniture to the middle of the room to see the difference.



For gaming and PC monitors I get 4K, it's beautiful. For TVs, 1080p is truly "good enough" because you can't see better. It's sort of like speakers that can produce sound outside the range human ears can hear. Better, but what's the point?

When Rollo Jr goes off to college and takes his 60" tv out of my rec room, I'll probably put my 60" 1080p down there and buy a 70" 4K for my living room. I don't plan on the resolution making a difference though.

I can certainly tell the difference between a 50" 4K display and a 1080p one at a store, standing maybe 8' away.  Just go to Best Buy and see for yourself.

Also, go for 80" instead of 70" if possible - the difference is worth it.  Movies would feel that much more like at the theater.  70" will feel small and cheap a few years from now, for a standard living room experience (if we look at the standards of technological progress).

[RolloTheGreat]

For the human eye to see the difference in 1080p and 4K on a 70" TV, the eye has to be less than 5' from the TV. Don't plan on moving my furniture to the middle of the room to see the difference.



For gaming and PC monitors I get 4K, it's beautiful. For TVs, 1080p is truly "good enough" because you can't see better. It's sort of like speakers that can produce sound outside the range human ears can hear. Better, but what's the point?

When Rollo Jr goes off to college and takes his 60" tv out of my rec room, I'll probably put my 60" 1080p down there and buy a 70" 4K for my living room. I don't plan on the resolution making a difference though.

I can certainly tell the difference between a 50" 4K display and a 1080p one at a store, standing maybe 8' away.  Just go to Best Buy and see for yourself.

Also, go for 80" instead of 70" if possible - the difference is worth it.  Movies would feel that much more like at the theater.  70" will feel small and cheap a few years from now, for a standard living room experience (if we look at the standards of technological progress).

I see what you mean, the 4% of people who were buying tvs over 70" at the end of 2014 might get up to 8% by the end of 2018. It would be a bad deal if 8-10% of people in the nation had a bigger tv than I do, people would probably whisper and point when I went to stores.

"He should have bought a 80" tv, I've heard there's a guy in his neighborhood that bought the 80"! I wonder if he got laid off?!"

https://blog.datarank.com/monitoring-tv-...versation/



I've observed in life that people spend a good percentage of their time trying to justify their purchases to themselves and convince others to do as they've done. Don't know why this is, but it's pretty pervasive.

Sorry Bofox, between pretty universal agreement in reviews I've seen about 4K tvs not being a big noticeable jump in image quality, total absence of 4K content available from my cable provider, and my general satisfaction with my 60" 1080p tvs, I won't be taking off work today to follow your advice.

When Rollo Jr heads off to college and takes his 60" 1080p out of the rec room, I'll buy a new tv and I imagine it will be 4k and bigger than the 60". Nothing about the situation currently is making me head to the store. I'll just muddle along with the rest of the 90%, blighted by our poverty and tiny tvs.

[BoFox]

YES!!  You must stay at the top 3% or I'll tell everybody and embarrass you!!

Nooooooo!!!!!  I didn't mean NOW!  I meant to simply avoid the 70" and go for 80"+, so you won't ever regret it later on (except you might actually even regret 80" if you decided that 90-100" would be better).  Plus as you wait for 4K content to become ubiquitous, 80" will be as cheap as 70" is now, or cheaper.  

I'm NOT trying to be bossy ----------    it's just that at a normal 10'-20' distance in a living room, the screen size cannot be stressed enough - especially for 4K as you try to point out with the pixel PPI being so dense.  Every 10" in size is a major difference.

70" is great for 1080p though!  Go ahead and upgrade to that sexy curved OLED 1080p screen without waiting for 4K!  Blah I go again!  

[RolloTheGreat]

It's also tough to predict what direction things will go in the tv world.

Not that long ago, no plasma = poor guy.

Then, no 3D = poor guy.

No anyone who cares about plasma or 3d these days? Yet two years ago 3d was everywhere and article on the web foretold how 3d was the future.

Now 3d is as dead as "Eyefinity" and "3dVision".

Will OLED be the only tv worth having in two years? Beats me.

Will fact there will be no 4K consoles and can be no 4k cable with current infrastructure mean that never takes off? Beats me.

[RolloTheGreat]

YES!!  You must stay at the top 3% or I'll tell everybody and embarrass you!!

Nooooooo!!!!!  I didn't mean NOW!  I meant to simply avoid the 70" and go for 80"+, so you won't ever regret it later on (except you might actually even regret 80" if you decided that 90-100" would be better).  Plus as you wait for 4K content to become ubiquitous, 80" will be as cheap as 70" is now, or cheaper.  

I'm NOT trying to be bossy ----------    it's just that at a normal 10'-20' distance in a living room, the screen size cannot be stressed enough - especially for 4K as you try to point out with the pixel PPI being so dense.  Every 10" in size is a major difference.

70" is great for 1080p though!  Go ahead and upgrade to that sexy curved OLED 1080p screen without waiting for 4K!  Blah I go again!  

I would agree that big tvs are cool.

[BoFox]

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-65-class-...Id=3429088

$5999 for the biggest available size (65"), but has most of the bells and whistles (4K, OLED, 3D, CURVED) despite the input lag that BentheSkyDancer mentions.

So, if you went and bought that one now, what would your wife say?  Just curious! 

Reminds me of the 40" plasma TV back in year 2000, that went for $5000 (and ate 600 watts). 

Me - no friggin way on Earth with my toddler boys running rampant around the house with all kinds of toy guns, toy missile launchers, the biggest collection of nerf dart guns in the school district, toy weapons like battle axes, wooden swords, etc.. etc..   My 65" 1080p DLP has a fine hairline crack in it, several inches long.  If it were a glass LCD panel, rather than fiberglass/plastic DLP, it'd probably be shattered many times over already if I got it replaced each time.  Also got a 100" 3D 1080p DLP projector screen setup in the fireplace room downstairs - no worries with the rampage of 5 wild boys (although a 4K projector would be nice)!  The color gamut of the DLP goes way beyond the Wii U controller - it's like "is this the same game I'm playing on the screen as what I see on the controller??" (edit - for example, indigo blue on the cheap controller screen is deep purple on the DLP screen).

[SickBeast]

Rollo you said you have an LG G3 phone right? Try this: put the phone beside a tablet with a decent resolution. For my own experiment I used my sony xperia z3 tablet compact which has an 8" 1080p screen. I think you will be quite shocked at how much sharper the LG G3 looks. It's quite striking actually. So those charts only mean so much imo.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

[RolloTheGreat]

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-65-class-...Id=3429088

$5999 for the biggest available size (65"), but has most of the bells and whistles (4K, OLED, 3D, CURVED) despite the input lag that BentheSkyDancer mentions.

So, if you went and bought that one now, what would your wife say?  Just curious! 

No clue, but she didn't care all the times I bought a new car or boat without discussing it, so I doubt she would divorce me.

No way I'd pay $6000 for that tv with it's motion quality though. I'd rather have a plasma again.

[SickBeast]

There is a 65" proscan tv being sold here in Canada for $998cad which is something silly like $700usd. It has 4k and hdmi 2.0, plus it has the same samsung panel as the samsung 6500 tv. I believe the rca tv is the same or similar.

[RolloTheGreat]

Rollo you said you have an LG G3 phone right? Try this: put the phone beside a tablet with a decent resolution. For my own experiment I used my sony xperia z3 tablet compact which has an 8" 1080p screen. I think you will be quite shocked at how much sharper the LG G3 looks. It's quite striking actually. So those charts only mean so much imo.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

This is just crazy.

G3 is old school, Rollo Jr and I went to Note 5s.

You're comparing a much smaller (higher ppi) screen to a much larger (lower PPI) one. Of course it looks clearer.

And the devices are right in your hand, way closer than a tv.

Don't you think a better test for me would be to game on my 28" 4K monitor in 4K or in 1080P?

It still wouldn't be a good test, but at least it's apples to apples on screen size. Or I could cmpare it to my 1600p 30" monitor.

Wake me when my cable provider has content.

[SickBeast]

Rollo you said you have an LG G3 phone right? Try this: put the phone beside a tablet with a decent resolution. For my own experiment I used my sony xperia z3 tablet compact which has an 8" 1080p screen. I think you will be quite shocked at how much sharper the LG G3 looks. It's quite striking actually. So those charts only mean so much imo.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

This is just crazy.

G3 is old school, Rollo Jr and I went to Note 5s.

You're comparing a much smaller (higher ppi) screen to a much larger (lower PPI) one. Of course it looks clearer.

And the devices are right in your hand, way closer than a tv.

Don't you think a better test for me would be to game on my 28" 4K monitor in 4K or in 1080P?  

It still wouldn't be a good test, but at least it's apples to apples on screen size. Or I could cmpare it to my 1600p 30" monitor.

Wake me when my cable provider has content.

Rollo my point is that my 8" tablet with a 1080p screen has a "retina" display with slightly more than 300ppi. My LG G3 has 500ppi IIRC. According to your charts, anything more than 300ppi is pointless because our eyes cannot resolve more resolution. But if you try doing what I said, you will see that the smaller screen looks sharper. That means that a 4k display would look sharper than a 1080p one, even if you're not sitting all that close and even if it's not monster sized.

[RolloTheGreat]

Rollo you said you have an LG G3 phone right? Try this: put the phone beside a tablet with a decent resolution. For my own experiment I used my sony xperia z3 tablet compact which has an 8" 1080p screen. I think you will be quite shocked at how much sharper the LG G3 looks. It's quite striking actually. So those charts only mean so much imo.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

This is just crazy.

G3 is old school, Rollo Jr and I went to Note 5s.

You're comparing a much smaller (higher ppi) screen to a much larger (lower PPI) one. Of course it looks clearer.

And the devices are right in your hand, way closer than a tv.

Don't you think a better test for me would be to game on my 28" 4K monitor in 4K or in 1080P?  

It still wouldn't be a good test, but at least it's apples to apples on screen size. Or I could cmpare it to my 1600p 30" monitor.

Wake me when my cable provider has content.

Rollo my point is that my 8" tablet with a 1080p screen has a "retina" display with slightly more than 300ppi.  My LG G3 has 500ppi IIRC.  According to your charts, anything more than 300ppi is pointless because our eyes cannot resolve more resolution.  But if you try doing what I said, you will see that the smaller screen looks sharper.  That means that a 4k display would look sharper than a 1080p one, even if you're not sitting all that close and even if it's not monster sized.

If you are convinced of the value, why don't you buy one? I'm happy with my 60" 1080p tvs.

[RolloTheGreat]

We've all been duped by profiteering tv companies who want to save on shipping.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/.../index.htm

Think that plasmas only appeal to video snobs? We recently brought a bunch of new employees into our TV labs and asked them to pick their favorite two TVs. Out of the 15 TVs playing the same program, every single person picked the only two plasma sets in the room.

http://plasmatvbuyingguide.com/hdtv/deat...ma-tv.html

While the new 4K offering beat last years 4K LED handily in both black saturation and color rendition (which showed light bleed in several areas of the screen), it did not beat the plasma. To my (very trained) eye, the TC-P65ZT60 beat the new 4K LED in black saturation, light bleed, color rendition and especially dark shadow detail. When I mentioned this to the Panasonic technician showing the display, he said, 'but it's getting closer.” OK, I'll give them that much...

[RolloTheGreat]

Good thing you've got such a well paying job so you can afford to have plasma TV's slurp down the power compared to LED-lit LCD tv's.......

Not to mention the plasma may start off looking better but several year on it will look nothing like it did brand new while the LCD will look exactly the same as it always did.

More disinformation.

http://www.cnet.com/news/what-you-need-t...nsumption/

The cost is tiny. A typical label can read anywhere from $6 for 32-inch LEDs to $38 for 65-inch plasmas (PDF). Per year. That's from 50 cents to $3.18 per month. If that's the definition of chump change to you, you're probably not alone.

Yes GStanford, with my "good paying job" I can easily afford $3/mo to run a television.

I also don't keep tvs 10 years, so it's unlikely I would ever use up a plasma tv.

We've been duped.

[BoFox]

A plasma screen or a DLP would be great for playing console games (PS4, XboxOne, WiiU, Xbox360, PS3, Wii, etc..), since the pixels have a softer appearance (and thus the aliasing won't appear to be as sharp as on LCD's).  Upscaling old Wii games for example to HDMI output on the Wii U would look way better on the softer plasma/DLP display than on a merciless razor-edged pixellated LCD display.  It especially applies for 720p/900p games on the latest consoles outputted onto a "1080p" screen.  Furthermore, 720p TV shows (which would be the case with so many broadcast channels) simply look more fitting on a softer plasma/DLP than on a 1080p LCD, which cannot completely do away with more severe pixel interpolation.  

Nearly half of all the HD channels are still broadcast in 720p:
http://hd-report.com/hd-channels/

[RolloTheGreat]

A plasma screen or a DLP would be great for playing console games (PS4, XboxOne, WiiU, Xbox360, PS3, Wii, etc..), since the pixels have a softer appearance (and thus the aliasing won't appear to be as sharp as on LCD's).  Upscaling old Wii games for example to HDMI output on the Wii U would look way better on the softer plasma/DLP display than on a merciless razor-edged pixellated LCD display.  It especially applies for 720p/900p games on the latest consoles outputted onto a "1080p" screen.  Furthermore, 720p TV shows (which would be the case with so many broadcast channels) simply look more fitting on a softer plasma/DLP than on a 1080p LCD, which cannot completely do away with more severe pixel interpolation.  

Nearly half of all the HD channels are still broadcast in 720p:
http://hd-report.com/hd-channels/

Even more reasons we should all be buying plasma tvs instead of 4k.

With CRTs and LCDs, I get why they did it. The displays were a lot heavier to ship, and had real drawbacks.

With plasma, the displays might be heavier, but when a $1000 60" is beating the image quality of sets costing 3X that, I don't get why people didn't buy them and sustain the market.

We were all spending $1000 on totally inferior LCD/LED sets.

Maybe so the BTR Trio would not laugh at us?

[RolloTheGreat]

Because LCD's are cheaper to manufacture and ship, cheaper to purchase, last longer, use less power, have superior black levels, support higher resolutions and can emulate bluriness if that is your thing.

I'm looking forward to hearing you wax lyrical about the superiority of vinyl over CD's and digital recordings next!  I'll even give you a hand in your research efforts - Panasonic has just started remanufacturing their highend turntables again.  Go on Rollo, race out and purchase a few - you know you want to!

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/01/t...than-ever/

Now GStan, you do know pretty much every 1080p plasma ever built stomp's a mud hole in your HiSense TVs ass on every relevant image quality metric, right? (and probably my Sharp and Samsung as well)

Whether LCDs are cheaper to manufacture, ship, and purchase is irrelevant- it's not like plasmas were expensive.

Electricity is pretty much free, and no one keeps TVs longer than plasmas last.

LCDs that are cheaper than plasmas certainly don't produce superior blacks, and resolution higher than 1080p won't matter for a while.

Don't know what you're talking about with blurriness. Plasma is pretty much the gold standard of clear motion.

[SickBeast]

I will concede that plasma does indeed have better overall picture quality than led, but it also has significant downsides that turned it into a niche product and effectively killed it. The power consumption is terrible. It has burn in. You can't use it in a bright room. You can't use it with kids or video games. It goes dim over time. Some sets turned pink over time. The list goes on and on. And then you have led which looks almost as good without any of plasma's downsides. I'm glad I'm not a videophile because I can guarantee you that my kids would have killed a plasma by now many times over. It would be like a mirror in my bright living room as well. So if you're a single guy living in a basement and you don't pay for electricity, yeah, get a plasma. For the rest of us led is by far the better choice. Products like plasma don't die for no reason. The people have spoken.

[RolloTheGreat]

I will concede that plasma does indeed have better overall picture quality than led, but it also has significant downsides that turned it into a niche product and effectively killed it. The power consumption is terrible.

Seriously? That article said $38/year at five hours a day. That's pretty much free.

It has burn in.

They pretty much solved that with stuff like pixel shift.

You can't use it in a bright room.

Draw the blinds halfway when watching my LED in a bright room as well.

You can't use it with kids or video games.

My son gamed on 50" plasmas for years.

It goes dim over time. Some sets turned pink over time.

Those 50" plasmas are in friend's living rooms, serve as their main tvs to this day.

The list goes on and on. And then you have led which looks almost as good without any of plasma's downsides. I'm glad I'm not a videophile because I can guarantee you that my kids would have killed a plasma by now many times over. It would be like a mirror in my bright living room as well. So if you're a single guy living in a basement and you don't pay for electricity, yeah, get a plasma. For the rest of us led is by far the better choice. Products like plasma don't die for no reason. The people have spoken.

Sometimes products like plasma die for no reason. I can tell you this: I miss the bad ass sports viewing on mine.

[BoFox]

I was addressing what BoFox wrote about 720p plasma's having a softer picture better suited for the Wii etc.  LCD's have a sharpness slider that can sharpen/blur the pixels for that sort of effect.

The lowest sharpness level on most LCD's (like Samsung's)  is actually the clearest 1:1 pixel-for-pixel output, and anything beyond 0 sharpness is actually exaggerated sharpness (an overshoot).  In general, LCD TV's are made in this way (which is different from LCD monitors).  When you hook up your PC to the 1080p LCD TV, notice severe "artifacts" with usual text letters (like the text in this post) with sharpness above 20-30?  The "I" becomes a razor-thin I, and then next "I" becomes a really fat I, etc..   On these TV's, with sharpness turned to zero (for accurate output), the text does become rather blurry however, unlike with LCD monitors designed for the desktop or laptop.

You did make a good point after all.  CRT tech like my GDM-FW900 has virtually zero pixel interpolation issues with scale-ability up to 2560x1600 and slightly beyond (with roughly 2700 horizontal phosphors for example), while offering a nice balance of both sharpness and softness with any type of resolution/display (movies, console games).  It still suffered when razor sharpness and pixel clarity like with tiny text were desired, which is where LCD's (designed for the PC, that is, with accurate and not exaggerated sharpness) dominated.  


Manufacturers just wanted to exaggerate the sharpness to try to make their displays "pop" out more than the other displays on the shelves in an electronics store.  But it's really all fugly erratic baloney..  "hey, the hair and pimples on that Iron Man guy stand out more on this display, so I'm buying this one!"

[RolloTheGreat]

The hisense TV I have lets you blur as well as sharpen with the same slider setting.  I mainly find it useful to hide the mpeg artifacts from over the air TV (the stations use absolutely dreadful encoding quality to squeeze out bandwidth for more stations because more is always better as we well know...)

It is adjustable per input, it isn't a global setting.  Hisense TV's have some pretty nifty features that would surprise those who try to trash talk them.

http://televisions.reviewed.com/content/...-tv-review

In one instance, a flock of gulls—flying over white surf breaking on the shoreline—seemed to flicker in and out of existence while the TV attempted to maintain the complex diagonal curve of the wave beneath the horizontal swoop of the birds.

And while the TV didn't struggle overmuch to play 4K content off of YouTube, it did seem to limit the playback of 4K/60fps YouTube videos, losing the smooth, silky appearance we've seen on other 4Ks.

Both issues suggest that the TV is choking on some of the codecs required for 4K/60fps playback. Basically, we're not 100% certain that the TV can resolve a 4K@60Hz video signal, even if it can technically receive the image.

You're right as usual GStan.

I would be pretty surprised if pieces of the picture I was watching flashed in and out of view, or the motion started chugging along.

Of course I'd be surprised by Sick Beast's brown hockey ice as well.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/.../13721743/

Sadly, despite its unique design elements and terrific on-board smart platform, the 55H7G's core performance is so terrible that we absolutely cannot recommend it.

The "good" reviews I saw of HiSense mostly seem to say, "This TV is a good deal. Not a great TV, but so cheap it's worth buying if you're looking for cheap tv".

[RolloTheGreat]

I dunno about their 4K tv's, I do know their 1080p sets are damn good for the money.

Sure "damn good" if the criteria is they light up when you turn them on:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2421378,00.asp

That said, the 55K610GW performs like a budget set; its color quality is sketchy, background noise is apparent, and shadow detail is mediocre.

http://televisions.reviewed.com/content/...-tv-review

The Hisense 55H7G ($699) is the company's flagship 1080p TV, and features a brand-new, Android-powered smart platform called VIDAA..Sadly, despite its unique design elements and a terrific on-board smart platform, the 55H7G's core performance is so terrible that we absolutely cannot recommend it. Hisense is onto something great with the new VIDAA smart platform, and the TV's overall presentation is promising, but the picture quality is much too poor for anyone searching for a satisfactory display.

Oh I see what you mean GStan. Why fuck around with anything but HiSense when stuff disappears from the screen on the 4K sets, and independent reviewers say the image quality is a joke and too bad to even be used on the 1080P sets?

HiSense-  

[RolloTheGreat]

All that said, if the input lag is low enough, I'm sure they're fine for console gaming.

You don't really have to care much about image quality there to have fun.

[SickBeast]

I honestly believe that the major review sites like cnet are in the back pocket of the big industry players like samsung. They don't want people to know just how good these Chinese tvs really are. Both of my sisters have samsung tvs. I am telling you, my Hisense looks better than both of them. The only tv in my family that looks better is my dad's Toshiba and that is probably because it is direct lit.

[RolloTheGreat]

I honestly believe that the major review sites like cnet are in the back pocket of the big industry players like samsung. They don't want people to know just how good these Chinese tvs really are. Both of my sisters have samsung tvs. I am telling you, my Hisense looks better than both of them. The only tv in my family that looks better is my dad's Toshiba and that is probably because it is direct lit.

Riiiighttt...the reviewers are all paid off by NVidia...errr...intel....ummmm.....SAMSUNG!

[RolloTheGreat]

Out of all the cheaper TV brands (and even quite a few of the high end TV brands) Hisense is the only one who owns their own manufacturing facilities and yes, that includes the LCD panel manufacturing.

Being able to make your own LCD panels puts you into a very small and influential group of manufacturers.

The ones putting out tvs where things disappear and reappear randomly?

[RolloTheGreat]

I honestly believe that the major review sites like cnet are in the back pocket of the big industry players like samsung. They don't want people to know just how good these Chinese tvs really are. Both of my sisters have samsung tvs. I am telling you, my Hisense looks better than both of them. The only tv in my family that looks better is my dad's Toshiba and that is probably because it is direct lit.

Riiiighttt...the reviewers are all paid off by NVidia...errr...intel....ummmm.....SAMSUNG!

Salesmen earn commissions, correct?  The bigger the sale value the bigger their commission, yes?  Wonder why they steer consumers towards high-end expensive brands instead of towards cheaper brands and models?

Hint: you don't need to be Einstein to work out their motivations.

Same thing for reviewers, they will give a more favorable review to companies that coddle them as well as supply product for review.

The classic AMD defense. "Those reviewers were paid off by the big companies!"

I think I've seen/posted enough reviews of HiSense that they won't be on my short list for purchase.

[RolloTheGreat]

your loss, no skin off of my nose.

You mean "Your loss if you don't buy one of the minority of HiSense tvs that get "ok" reviews, and my gain if I avoid one of the mnany that reviewers say should never be purchased"?

[RolloTheGreat]

Believe whatever you want about Hisense, Rollo.  I truly don't care.

You are remarkably brainless though.

You love to tell us how you work to live, not the other way around amd that you are planning to be financially secure in retirement, yet you spend up big at every opportunity instead of value buying and investing the difference into your retirement....

Your idiocy gets even more laughable when you tell us that you don't even keep all these fancy purchases around long enough for them to get close to their expected usage lifetime.  Do you also heat your house by burning $100 bills in the furnace I wonder?  Wipe your arse with $100 bills as well?

Like most people, you can only understand things from your own perspective.

If I were you, I'd buy HiSense as well, I just wouldn't go online and tout it as the "only intelligent choice".

Odds are very good we've already ensured we'll have a six figure retirement income between us. If either of us lost our job, we could stay in our house paying the bills. Doesn't make us rich, doesn't make us poor.

It does mean I can buy a Sharp or Samsung tv instead of a ChangHong or HiSense. My "HiSense" move is that I spend $1200 - $1400 on TVs, not $3000-$4000, but I don't call the people who do "stupid".

I understand that they either have more money than I or choose to spend it differently.

[SickBeast]

Most people who know anything about the television industry know that Hisense is a huge up and coming brand. They are poised to be the new Vizio. Hisense is the #1 brand in China and they recently overtook Sony in global sales. A lot of the TVs from the bigger brands are made by Hisense as well.

[RolloTheGreat]

Most people who know anything about the television industry know that Hisense is a huge up and coming brand. They are poised to be the new Vizio. Hisense is the #1 brand in China and they recently overtook Sony in global sales. A lot of the TVs from the bigger brands are made by Hisense as well.

I guess Consumer Reports, the giant independent testing company, "doesn't know the tv industry":

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/.../index.htm

The other question, of course, is how good the new Sharp-branded TVs will be when Hisense takes over the name. We don't currently have any Hisense TVs in our Ratings, but we have tested these sets over the past few years, and most have been so-so performers, rarely rising above the bottom half of the Ratings for TVs at their screen size.

[RolloTheGreat]

Before you and GStan throw out the AMD Advocate defense "The reviewers are paid off, they are just as good!":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Reports

It publishes reviews and comparisons of consumer products and services based on reporting and results from its in-house testing laboratory and survey research center. The magazine accepts no advertising, pays for all the products it tests, and, as a not-for-profit organization, has no shareholders.

If these guys say their testing says HiSense TVs are almost always in the bottom half, you can believe it.

Also, unless you're using instrument and test programs like they do, you wouldn't even know how uniform, color accurate, bright, etc their tvs are compared to others.

I agree with the strategy of not buying leading edge and on brand name alone, makes perfect sense and I do it myself unless I just want the item now and knowingly pay launch price. (E.G. I ordered GTX 980 and GTX980Ti on launch day, rather than wait for deals)

What I don't get is spending $500-$600 on something that is not a "good" item when you can get the "good" item for $1000.. (or recommending others buy the $500- $600 item)

[RolloTheGreat]

GStan I'm just trying to warn people about the HiSense brand because I found enough bad about them that it would seem prudent.

I'm not trying to pull a "my dick is bigger" thing.

The 60" Sharp Aquos in my living room is no great shakes as tvs go these days either, but it was on sale for $1400 at a time when 60" tvs were more rare and costly.

I'm guessing the 60" Samsung I bought Rollo Jr based on gaming response time is a much better panel, and it was $1200 a year or two later.

When I get a new tv I'll probably spend that again, so I'm not a videophile by any means. Just trying to throw up a flag on the Chinese tv invasion.

[RolloTheGreat]

So you are against Hisense simply because it isn't an American brand?

How ridiculous.  None of the other TV's you can purchase are American either, everything in them is manufactured overseas.

As for the Chinese they have done more to lift the quality of my (and countless millions of other peoples) life than any American (or Australian) company ever has due to offering excellent goods at reasonable prices.

I didn't say I cared if they are American, and I know none of the tvs are.

I only care about these tvs because a lot of people say they're sketchy.

[RolloTheGreat]

They're Chinese TVs. They're sketchy.

What do you want me to say,"Beware this influx of cheap, sub par TVs that were probably are not domestic"?