4K TVs Continue To Rise Despite TV Shipments Dropping

[RolloTheGreat]

So I have to admit, I like 4k way more than I thought I would.  Whoever came up with the notion that those viewing charts mean anything really didn't know what they were talking about.

I seem to have done a pretty good job calibrating my TV.  It was quite tricky and I was shocked by how much adjustment it needed.  Getting the yellows to look right was a real challenge.  I had to go into the white balance settings and get right into the service menu.

For the $320USD that I paid for the screen I'm very happy with it but it's not perfect and it's quite clear why the big brands cost more.  I'm having to re-initialize the color settings every time I turn on the TV which is a bit of a pain.  Thankfully there is a hotkey for it on the remote but this type of glitch is unacceptable IMO, particularly considering how bad the color was out of the box.  If you guys need a cheap 4k display for your PC these are really great displays though.  Excellent black levels and also excellent viewing angles.  I have a feeling it's a relatively high end IPS panel.  Input lag is also great as is uniformity.  There is a bit of backlight bleed but it's mitigated by lowering the backlight and it's only noticeable in a pitch black room with a black screen.

$320 USD?!?  Didn't know it was THAT cheap!  

Excellent blacks probably mean it's a VA screen instead of IPS (since IPS doesn't have "excellent" black levels - not even "very good").  I'd prefer a VA screen anyways.  IPS just has better viewing angles, but VA isn't bad for a TV - who wants to watch a TV from more than 45 degrees off?  Still, a VA screen isn't anything like a plasma, let alone OLED.  I had a VA screen for like 8 years.  It was alright.

What's the model again?  $320!!!  You got a killer deal of the year (probably of 2-3 years from now, still a killer deal).

I think you should buy one BoFox.

There is a "tv conspriracy" that GStan tried to tell us about.

All the best tvs cost under $500, and the people paying more are being duped. TVs are one of very few items in life you do not "get what you pay for".

The review sites have all been paid off.



More seriously, those tvs are probably fine for gaming but without a reputable review site saying they're good for movies, sports, tv I'll stay away.

Not to mention the $399 microcenter tv is not what I want to be tossing out when people are discussing tvs at the office or social gatherings. "GStan said they're good" won't cut it.

[SickBeast]

So I have to admit, I like 4k way more than I thought I would.  Whoever came up with the notion that those viewing charts mean anything really didn't know what they were talking about.

I seem to have done a pretty good job calibrating my TV.  It was quite tricky and I was shocked by how much adjustment it needed.  Getting the yellows to look right was a real challenge.  I had to go into the white balance settings and get right into the service menu.

For the $320USD that I paid for the screen I'm very happy with it but it's not perfect and it's quite clear why the big brands cost more.  I'm having to re-initialize the color settings every time I turn on the TV which is a bit of a pain.  Thankfully there is a hotkey for it on the remote but this type of glitch is unacceptable IMO, particularly considering how bad the color was out of the box.  If you guys need a cheap 4k display for your PC these are really great displays though.  Excellent black levels and also excellent viewing angles.  I have a feeling it's a relatively high end IPS panel.  Input lag is also great as is uniformity.  There is a bit of backlight bleed but it's mitigated by lowering the backlight and it's only noticeable in a pitch black room with a black screen.

$320 USD?!?  Didn't know it was THAT cheap!  

Excellent blacks probably mean it's a VA screen instead of IPS (since IPS doesn't have "excellent" black levels - not even "very good").  I'd prefer a VA screen anyways.  IPS just has better viewing angles, but VA isn't bad for a TV - who wants to watch a TV from more than 45 degrees off?  Still, a VA screen isn't anything like a plasma, let alone OLED.  I had a VA screen for like 8 years.  It was alright.

What's the model again?  $320!!!  You got a killer deal of the year (probably of 2-3 years from now, still a killer deal).

I think you should buy one BoFox.

There is a "tv conspriracy" that GStan tried to tell us about.

All the best tvs cost under $500, and the people paying more are being duped. TVs are one of very few items in life you do not "get what you pay for".

The review sites have all been paid off.



More seriously, those tvs are probably fine for gaming but without a reputable review site saying they're good for movies, sports, tv I'll stay away.

Not to mention the $399 microcenter tv is not what I want to be tossing out when people are discussing tvs at the office or social gatherings. "GStan said they're good" won't cut it.

If it were a small difference in price I would agree with you. However for me here in Canada the next cheapest 55" 4k TV is a Vizio at Costco for $900 and it doesn't have HDMI 2.0. So I would have paid more than double for a better brand name. Not only that but Vizio is also a budget brand. A Sony or Samsung would cost even more.

The Sonys and Samsungs undoubtedly have a better picture and more features, however that is only worth so much to me. It's certainly not worth double to triple the price.

You don't have to believe me. I'm telling you that this TV has a great picture. You seem more interested in prestige and status, wanting to brag about your TV at the water cooler. All I care about is price/performance and I could care less about smart features. My $25 Chromecast takes care of that and my HTPC blows away any smart platform out there.

[RolloTheGreat]

If it were a small difference in price I would agree with you.  However for me here in Canada the next cheapest 55" 4k TV is a Vizio at Costco for $900 and it doesn't have HDMI 2.0.  So I would have paid more than double for a better brand name.  Not only that but Vizio is also a budget brand.  A Sony or Samsung would cost even more.

The Sonys and Samsungs undoubtedly have a better picture and more features, however that is only worth so much to me.  It's certainly not worth double to triple the price.

You don't have to believe me.  I'm telling you that this TV has a great picture.  You seem more interested in prestige and status, wanting to brag about your TV at the water cooler.  All I care about is price/performance and I could care less about smart features.  My $25 Chromecast takes care of that and my HTPC blows away any smart platform out there.

You do realize that we have the exact same position on this matter, right?

You: Willing to spend $320 on a 55" 4K tv, not the size or quality you would buy if you were Trump.

Me: Willing to spend $2000 on a 65" 4K tv , not the size or quality I would buy if I were Trump.

Does our decision imply one of us has more or less money than the other? No, could well just be differences in how we choose to spend the money we have. I could afford to buy the biggest OLED, but I don't, maybe the same for you.

My only point was there is a reason that tv costs $320, and the reason is it delivers that much less quality or performance. If it did not, the tv would cost in line with the other tvs at other price points because RCA isn't in business to give away tvs and the others couldn't charge so much more if RCA was as good.

Same as the HiSense discussion and Yaris vs Silverado discussions.

[BenSkywalker]

To add to what Rollo was saying, any one of my speakers for my surround sound system cost more than his entire sound system- and that's in my bedroom. That isn't an issue at all of what we can afford- Rollo spends *way* more on his vehicles than I do because they aren't that important to me, my sound is.

 My $25 Chromecast takes care of that and my HTPC blows away any smart platform out there.

I'd put my Shield TV against your HTPC without batting an eye, can't think of anything it is missing at this point really. Actually, unless you have a pretty recent HTPC I probably have you beat

[SickBeast]

If it were a small difference in price I would agree with you.  However for me here in Canada the next cheapest 55" 4k TV is a Vizio at Costco for $900 and it doesn't have HDMI 2.0.  So I would have paid more than double for a better brand name.  Not only that but Vizio is also a budget brand.  A Sony or Samsung would cost even more.

The Sonys and Samsungs undoubtedly have a better picture and more features, however that is only worth so much to me.  It's certainly not worth double to triple the price.

You don't have to believe me.  I'm telling you that this TV has a great picture.  You seem more interested in prestige and status, wanting to brag about your TV at the water cooler.  All I care about is price/performance and I could care less about smart features.  My $25 Chromecast takes care of that and my HTPC blows away any smart platform out there.

You do realize that we have the exact same position on this matter, right?

You: Willing to spend $320 on a 55" 4K tv, not the size or quality you would buy if you were Trump.

Me: Willing to spend $2000 on a 65" 4K tv , not the size or quality I would buy if I were Trump.

Does our decision imply one of us has more or less money than the other? No, could well just be differences in how we choose to spend the money we have. I could afford to buy the biggest OLED, but I don't, maybe the same for you.

My only point was there is a reason that tv costs $320, and the reason is it delivers that much less quality or performance. If it did not, the tv would cost in line with the other tvs at other price points because RCA isn't in business to give away tvs and the others couldn't charge so much more if RCA was as good.

Same as the HiSense discussion and Yaris vs Silverado discussions.

The problem is that it doesn't work that way. Once you get into the more expensive TVs like the Sony you bought, you pay thousands extra to get maybe a 10% better product. So no, you don't always get what you pay for. The same goes for cars. Luxury cars are nicer than economy cars, however you get *far* more value when you buy an economy car. Economy cars like the Civic are loss leaders; the manufacturers don't even profit off them. That should tell you something. I could go on and on. An i7 CPU performs maybe 15% faster than an i5 but it's 50% more expensive. Hopefully by now you get my point. You don't always get what you pay for. You have to do research before you buy something and then make a decision. In the case of my TV, I read online on the Avsforum and saw that pretty much everyone that bought one was very happy with it. I knew exactly what I was getting into before I bought it.

[happy medium]

this is a cool way to determine what TV resolution to buy.

http://isthisretina.com/

So a 60 inch 4k TV from 4+ feet away is the limit of the human retina to differentiate the pixels.

[SickBeast]

this is a cool way to determine what TV resolution to buy.

http://isthisretina.com/

So a 60 inch 4k TV from 4+ feet away is the limit of the human retina to differentiate the pixels.

According to that nonsense a 1080p screen from 8' should be "retina" however I notice a *huge* difference between 1080p and 4k at that viewing distance on a 55" screen.

IMO the definition of "retina" is too low of a DPI.

[SteelCrysis]

Like I said before, measurements based on seeing pixels are a very poor means for judging whether a monitor will have increased quality.

[happy medium]

this is a cool way to determine what TV resolution to buy.

http://isthisretina.com/

So a 60 inch 4k TV from 4+ feet away is the limit of the human retina to differentiate the pixels.

According to that nonsense a 1080p screen from 8' should be "retina" however I notice a *huge* difference between 1080p and 4k at that viewing distance on a 55" screen.

IMO the definition of "retina" is too low of a DPI.

I 'm sure if you have two of the same model TV's, with the same quality screens, with just different picture sizes, you could not tell the difference if you used the link I gave you.

My buddy is a optometrist and he agrees. This is not an opinion, its science.
I believe your e-peen and wallet are playing tricks on your eyes.

unless your superman?

edit: My pop has a $1,300 37 inch Vizio from 10+ years ago and my 250$ 40 inch Hisense TV puts his to shame at the same viewing distance.
on the other hand he also has a 2003, 2,500$ 40" Sony xbr tube tv that's blows most TV's out of the water at any distance.

[SickBeast]

this is a cool way to determine what TV resolution to buy.

http://isthisretina.com/

So a 60 inch 4k TV from 4+ feet away is the limit of the human retina to differentiate the pixels.

According to that nonsense a 1080p screen from 8' should be "retina" however I notice a *huge* difference between 1080p and 4k at that viewing distance on a 55" screen.

IMO the definition of "retina" is too low of a DPI.

I 'm sure if you have two of the same model TV's, with the same quality screens, with just different picture sizes, you could not tell the difference if you used the link I gave you.

My buddy is a optometrist and he agrees. This is not an opinion, its science.
I believe your e-peen and wallet are playing tricks on your eyes.

unless your superman?

edit: My pop has a $1,300 37 inch Vizio from 10+ years ago and my 250$ 40 inch Hisense TV puts his to shame at the same viewing distance.
on the other hand he also has a 2003, 2,500$ 40" Sony xbr tube tv that's blows most TV's out of the water at any distance.

You don't have to agree or listen. I am telling you that everything looks *much* sharper on my 4k TV compared with my old 1080p TV. The viewing charts are nonsense. I am telling you this based on experience. I can clearly see a difference. SteelCrysis also posted about a blind survey where pretty much everyone could tell the difference even though the viewing charts said it was impossible. It's not a small difference, either. It's very noticeable. Also I tried sitting closer (4' away) and it's incredibly immersive and it's pin sharp even from that distance.

[happy medium]

what I mean is mabe your old tv really sucked.

[SickBeast]

My old tv was excellent. 4k is much sharper.

[RolloTheGreat]

I'm watching a 32" Toshiba 1080p right now, waiting for new set to be delivered next week.

Howard Stern is not the king of all media, I am.

[BoFox]

Hey Happymedium, it's not simply the ability to discern individual pixels like some sites/charts try to base everything upon.  Even if one had say, flawed 20/80 vision but didnt bother to put his glasses on, 720 gaming on a big screen would still look considerably blurrier than 1080p even though he still could not discern individual pixels of the 720p resolution.  Things still look smoother, clearer, and sharper to the guy with poor eyesight.  It's why 4x AA looks nice even on 4K renderings, even if we cannot discern an individual 4K pixel on its own from the same distance.  I think its just that when the overall pattern is more crisp, it helps our imperfect eyes to do "half of the work" better.

[SteelCrysis]

Hey Happymedium, it's not simply the ability to discern individual pixels like some sites/charts try to base everything upon.  Even if one had say, flawed 20/80 vision but didnt bother to put his glasses on, 720 gaming on a big screen would still look considerably blurrier than 1080p even though he still could not discern individual pixels of the 720p resolution.  Things still look smoother, clearer, and sharper to the guy with poor eyesight.  It's why 4x AA looks nice even on 4K renderings, even if we cannot discern an individual 4K pixel on its own from the same distance.  I think its just that when the overall pattern is more crisp, it helps our imperfect eyes to do "half of the work" better.

[RolloTheGreat]

The XBR65850D is here, and I have watched upscaled PS Vue (720p) and broadcast tv (1080i).

I have to admit it looks better than my old Sharp, but that tv was 4 years old and $1400.. (so a less expensive tv)

I'm really impressed with PS Vue. I'm streaming it with a Roku4, and while the shows don't show up instantly when you surf, the buffering delay of a couple seconds seems well worth the $100/mo I'm saving on cable.

Still have Epix Hits for some movie content, and I never really watched much on HBO/Cinemax.