4K yay or 4K nay?

[Alan P]

Every year my work does a Salary Sacrifice scheme where they offer items related to the business at a small discount and allow you to pay the item off over 12 months direct from your paycheck. I've had two iPads over the past two years and have no need or desire for another.

What they are offering is TV's and I'm tempted. They have a 32", 42, 47 and 55" 1080p sets but that's not what I'm interested in. They are offering a 4k 49" set for £92.30 a month. All the TV sets are by LG so I have no choice in manufacturer. Does anyone have a 4k set already? I watch very little content that even runs at 1080p, most of my content is 1080i at best via Sky TV's HD service but I do have Fibre BB with 40meg down so I'd say streaming 4k content is doable, I just haven't heard a thing about any 4k service coming.

[Random]

Is there any 4k content being broadcast?

[Alan P]

No, although I hear Netflix will be launching a 4k service soon. How much there will be though I don't know. Would also mean I would have to subscribe though.

[drew]

"Soon" usually means "within 2 years" and "content" means "4 movies".

I'm not sure I'd just on that bandwagon, just yet. But that's just my opinion (coming from someone that would always buy shit the day it came out, at ass-rape cost).

[thesameguy]

I just installed a 65" 4k Samsung - it's their top model, with face/voice/gesture recognition and all the nifty smart features, etc.

I didn't have any 4k content to show, but the BDs I tried looked fantastic. Even SDTV looked great. I think the 4k sets have so many pixels and so much processing power they can render images better than contemporary HDTVs can, even old crap images.

I don't know TV pricing in the UK, but if that's the set I think it is, it has a current price of US$1500 here, so £92.30 seems slightly high - although if this plan includes financing charges or interest, then maybe right on target. What I have read is that 4k sets will drop 30-50% by Christmas (maybe the first wave happening now) so 4k sets will be priced similarly to what 2k sets are right now. Point being, it *seems* like this will be an $800-$1000 TV by the end of the year. Again, dunno what that means elsewhere.

My concern about buying a 4k set right this second is going to be connectivity. The is no current HDMI support for those resolutions, so you need DisplayPort to run them. I don't think this set has DisplayPort. Although unlikely, I'd be slightly worried about investing in this technology until a supported connectivity standard emerges. The only reason I bought the 4k Samsung is because it was only $600 more than the 2k version that I needed for the project, and that $600 (a 20% bump in price) gave the possibility of some future proofing, whereas the 2k set was certainly going to be passé in a year.

Unless you're in such a situation - that is the price is stellar - I'd wait.

[Blerpa]

Not worth the pain in the absurd costs for such measly content (none on tv so far... Wimbledon may get 4K coverage this year, and maybe some will experiment with 4K for the World Football Cup in Brasil).
Either you subscribe on Netflix and then hope their 4K content isn't only next season of House of Cards (which will be outstanding, mind... it already is at 1080i or 1080p) or you are stuck with 4K videos over Youtube, basically.

OTOH, if you never spend big money on TV and are not excessively picky on quality (I don't rate LG tv sets among the best. And no, I don't rate Samsung ones among them either. Not even the ludicrously expensive ones) and you know you won't buy anything high quality in the next 5-7 years... go for it.
One thing: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD do NOT buy any curved display TV set. They are simply SHIT. Distorded views, bad offcenter viewing angles... they are really a poisonous gimmick pushed by korean companies as a new "to have" feature which do more bad than good to tv watching.

And no, they have nothing to do with the slightly curved cinema theatres canvas. Not in the same ballpark at all.
EDIT: And yes, I'd worry about connectivity standards too.

[Alan P]

Wouldn't ever consider a curved set. I don't see the point. I'm worried about connectivity too, apparently HDMI 2.0 is only supported on one of the four available connections on the TV. I may just skip this year and wait until next year. I just don't see the content although I am hearing rumours about a limited Sky 4k service either very late this year or early next.

[Yw-slayer]

My dad seems keener on the curved sets (for more immersion) than 4K. In fact he's going to replace his c. 10yo Sony plasma this year.

Having said that, I'm trying to convince him to install a projector for the most bang-for-buck, given that he installed all the wiring 10 years ago (albeit that it'll probably need to be upgraded to HDMI 1.4a or whatever) and all he needs to do is install the projector mount and screen.

[Rare White Ape]

Fuck 4K... For now.

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/06/4k-is-officially-the-next-dumb-format-war/

And Netflix is doing 4K right now, all you need is a TV that streams it.

[Blerpa]

Having said that, I'm trying to convince him to install a projector for the most bang-for-buck, given that he installed all the wiring 10 years ago (albeit that it'll probably need to be upgraded to HDMI 1.4a or whatever) and all he needs to do is install the projector mount and screen.

If he wants to spend a lot of money: high quality 4K VPR. And fuck tv panels. Really.

[Yw-slayer]

I don't think he wants to spend a lot of money. But what's 4K VPR?

[GB]

Every time I hear "4K", all I can think of is this:


http://www.anyclip.com/movies/night-shift/chuck-stands-up-for-himself/

[Blerpa]

I don't think he wants to spend a lot of money. But what's 4K VPR?

A video projector - I think DLP - able to show 4K material. Sony's has great ones out.

[Kchrpm]

*checks*

Sony's 3-digit signifier for all of their current projectors is VPL.

http://store.sony.com/home-theater-projectors/cat-27-catid-All-Home-Theater-Projectors

They have a couple of 4K models, at $15k and $28k. It looks like they are SXRD, not DLP (SXRD is Sony's own take on the multiple LCD tech that DLP mostly replaced).

[stephenb]

AV forums wrote a good article on this very subject recently: http://www.avforums.com/article/what-will-make-you-buy-a-4k-ultra-hd-tv-projector.10313
Personally not for me at the moment. I am still very happy with the performance of my first generation Pioneer Kuro 428XD which isn't even Full HD resolution. I'd need to see quality 4K content first before I even consider it and that isn't going to come from streaming or broadcast services in my opinion.

[Alan P]

have decided for definite to steer clear of the 4K set just now and in fact a new TV completely for now. The review of the 4K set didn't help!


The LG 49UB850V is not only the worst 4K TV we’ve tested, it’s also one of the worst-performing televisions we’ve reviewed to date in terms of image quality. Its subpar picture performance is made all the more difficult to accept by the display’s retail price of £1500. Sure, it’s 4K (even that’s not strictly true considering the significant drop in resolution with movement), but there exist many other critical elements of picture quality including contrast ratio, shadow detail and motion handling, and the UB850 flunked the majority of them.

[21Kid]

I'd probably wait on 4k. Unless you NEED a new television, right now.

But, I also wouldn't get a 49" one either. Unless your home is tiny and can't fit anything larger. If I was going to get a 4k screen, it would probably be 65"

[Alan P]

I'm sticking with my venerable but still pretty good Panasonic Plasma for now.

[Jason]

Panasonic Plasma 4 lyfe

[Yw-slayer]

HIGH FIVE, PANASONIC PLASMA BROTHERS

[TheBenior]

I'll keep my Panasonic plasma until it dies on me. Again.

[Yw-slayer]

Mine will NEVER DIE.

(really, I think nowadays it's mostly used to watch Peppa Pig)

[TheBenior]

My P50G25 had a board short out a month out of the factory warranty period. Good thing I had gotten a Squaretrade extended warranty; it paid for itself then. It's been solid for the 3 years since that happened.

[Blerpa]

Another Panasonic Plasma brother in here. Old 42" G20... still rocking. Hard.

[Random]

w00t!

Hoping mine lasts long enough to make it to whatever the next big breakthrough is--assuming there is one.

[Rare White Ape]

Mine will NEVER DIE.

(really, I think nowadays it's mostly used to watch Peppa Pig)

Push that thing to its limit yo

[Yw-slayer]

It's tough, bro, might have to diversify into Barney.

[Random]

Mrs. Spider's Sunny Patch Friends. :hard:

[Yw-slayer]

Never heard of that. Might have to hit up Clifford The Big Red Dog. I've already got all of the Paddington series, but she's a bit young to appreciate all the dialogue.

[21Kid]

Since 4K seems mostly overkill right now, and pretty expensive.

Would it be worth upgrading my 2010 1080p 55" LED/LCD to a 70" 1080p LED/LCD for $1200?
The old one still has wifi and built-in apps. But, it was one of the early adopters and has a pretty large bevel and is at least twice as thick as modern LEDs.

That grey bottom speaker bar is really starting to annoy me, when I see how thin the frame on new TVs are.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/611RiyNq61S._SL1500_.jpg
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61YuVcOB6uL._SL1500_.jpg

[Kchrpm]

$1200 for 70" seems like a great deal, but I would think 4K will be the "standard" in 5 years or so and I take that into consideration when it comes to talking about TV prices.

[21Kid]

That's kind of what I'm thinking. And 5 years is new TV territory again anyway. ;)

Whoa, didn't realize how big those earlier pics were... sorry.

[Kchrpm]

Ah, yes, if 5 years is your upgrade window, then do it to it! That seems like a great deal, and you can always just relegate that 70" to secondary theater/man cave duty when the time comes.

[Rare White Ape]

I still find it amusing how a three inch thick TV is now considered to be fat.

[Jason]

And here I am being a loser with my fatty 42" 720p plasma.

[Random]

720LOL

[Blerpa]

And here I am being a loser with my fatty 42" 720p plasma.

Probably still looks better than godawful LCD LED mid-tier TVs by Samsung. By far.

[Jason]

Plasma ftw

[Yw-slayer]

Plasma 4 LY43

[Kchrpm]

Cyber Monday has 4K TV prices hovering around and under $1000

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/promo/cm-tvs-131068?nrp=15&cp=1&seeAll=&qp=maximumresolution_facet%3DMaximum%20Resolution~ 3840%20x%202160

[21Kid]

Sharp's 80-Inch Beyond 4K Ultra HD TV Is Overstuffed With Pixels (http://gizmodo.com/sharps-80-inch-beyond-4k-ultra-hd-tv-is-overstuffed-wit-1677451590)

I could tell you how purty it is (It's really purty!), but in this case it's best to just go with the specs. The Beyond comes with a mind-bending 66 million subpixels, which Sharp says is 42 million more pixels than the standard 4K Ultra competition with a near-8K resolution (which is 7,680 x 4,320.) They get to that number using what Sharp calls pixel splitting, so basically you're getting a crap ton of pixels. That means these displays can show off more colors than ever before, and Sharp helps with the whole "but there's isn't even 4K content" thing by providing its own upscaler so all those pixels can actually be used though probably not as great if the content was shot in a native resolution.

[thesameguy]

Glad this has happened. I would be irked to buy a 4k TV only to find out 8k was already a thing. These people should have the courtesy of waiting a solid 5 years before making everyone buy all new things again. :P

[Rare White Ape]

It's funny.

LG has a 1080p curved LED TV.
They also have a curved 1080p OLED TV. They call this the ultimate display.

And they have a curved 4K TV.
And they have a flat 4K OLED TV.

But they don't have a curved 4K OLED TV. Surely this is the ultimate display.

Maybe it'll come out in a years time.

Then they'll start on the 8K curveds and OLEDs circus.

[21Kid]

Oh yeah... Curved TVs. Another thing that should have been left in 2014. :smh:

[Blerpa]

Curved TVs will die out soon, although Samsung keeps pushing this useless crap with their new PC monitors and AIOs. Blargh.

[Freude am Fahren]

I don't get the curved thing. Even the 1080p ones are like twice the price of a comparable 4k flat, right? Dumb gimmick.

[21Kid]

Here you go Krunch! Sony 4k projector (http://www.cnet.com/products/sony-vpl-vw350es/) under $8k for a limited time!!!

If I only had a home theater room... And a wheelbarrow full of money.

Sony even has a 4K TV that's thinner than an iPhone. :eek:

[Kchrpm]

Giggity :up:

[Rare White Ape]

I don't get the curved thing. Even the 1080p ones are like twice the price of a comparable 4k flat, right? Dumb gimmick.

It's good... If you're an IMAX theatre with a giant screen and the content you're projecting is designed to be natively displayed on a giant curved screen.

But for home use where you're watching BluRay discs at best (which are native 1080p on a flat screen, never mind any upscaled 4K mumbo jumbo) and you're 3 meters from the screen... Fuck that.

[21Kid]

Sounds like I should hold out for a 4K TV with quantum dots (Why Your Next TV Could (and Should) Be Stuffed With Quantum Dots).

It's no secret that OLED televisions produce the best quality HDTV images on the market today. It's also no secret that OLED sets are ludicrously, obscenely expensive compared to conventional LEDs. But what if there were a way to produce OLED-quality images at a fraction of their current price? Oh hey, there is.

They're called quantum dots: nano-scale crystals that absorb light and re-emit it at a different, very specific, wavelength. They basically do what the hydrocarbon semiconductors in an OLED set do but without all the fancy organic chemistry. They could hold the key to creating plasma-quality color saturation that never fades, brighter panels with increased contrast, and wider gamuts—all for not much more than today's LCD sets.
...
But still, it's just a frickin' back light, right? How much better of a picture can it possibly produce just by cleaning up the color temperature of the source light? Turns out, it makes a huge difference—just as much as OLED, without the astronomical price tag.

[KillerB]

Quantum dots sound like futuristic illicit drugs on a sci-fi show made in the 70s.

[Kchrpm]

Not all 4K TVs are futureproof

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/4KTV-Standards-Are-A-Mess-and-Just-41-Even-Know-What-4K-Is-133032

[thesameguy]

Since the full complement of 4k standards don't really exist yet, it's probably safe to say none are.

[Kchrpm]

Any idea how much can be handled with just a firmware OTA update, or will hardware changes be required?

[thesameguy]

No firsthand knowledge, but it's probably tough to predict. When it comes to TV functions I suspect a lot is done in hardware to keep manufacturing costs down, so the opportunity for soft or firmware to change behaviors is probably limited. Along the same lines, it seems that TVs are frequently built to a barely-adequate spec, so the chances of adding in anything that requires more processor speed is unlikely. The comment in that article about 4k TVs only offering 10gb throughput instead of the specified 18gb throughput would be an example of that. It's kind of like the early 1080i/1080p days, when TVs would say "1080p!" as loudly as possible but then quietly note it was 1080i/60 or 1080p/30. Not enough power to handle the whole spec. It's really impossible to know what any TV's upgradability will be - too many factors from design or engineering, and even what the final specs look like.

My opinion is that if you need a TV, 4k sets are available inexpensively enough that you may just wanna take the risk it'll be compatible/useful long term. But I definitely wouldn't scrap a decent 2k to buy 4k right now.

[Kchrpm]

I just want one of those new dual laser projector setups that IMAX is rolling out to theaters.

[thesameguy]

I don't see many movies in the theater, but when I do it's always imax. I keep hoping we'll get one of those systems soon but I don't think Sacramento is a big enough market to justify that expense early on. :(

[21Kid]

Sounds like one of those Dos Equis memes.

Lasers are cool.

[Rare White Ape]

Any idea how much can be handled with just a firmware OTA update, or will hardware changes be required?

For sure.

The panels themselves can display a 4K picture, and the processors that run them provide a fair bit of grunt for the purpose of things like apps and faking a 100Hz image from a 24fps source.

But with bottlenecks like the HDMI ports providing only half the bandwidth required, you're looking at needing to replace in a few years to be able to experience the Real Thing.

Too bad if you spent top dollar when the first sets came out.

[Freude am Fahren]

...faking a 100Hz image from a 24fps source...

If you're doing this, you're doing it wrong anyway :D

[Rare White Ape]

Yeeeah I know. I always watch my shit in its native format.

Hell, I've been there watching the video split as its being shot. It's all in 24p from beginning to end.

[21Kid]

Highly unlikely that you'd notice the difference from the firmware though. Unless you have a 15 foot screen. :|

[Phil_SS]

I went 4K nay. Picked up a 60" Vizio M series from Costco. It is a floor model that I got them to knock $150 of the price. Plus I used my Costco refund check so I got it for about $280.

Pretty stoked. Coming from a 37" 780P, it is a big change. Looks absolutely brilliant.

And with Costco I get the 2 year no questions asked warranty.

[Yw-slayer]

Usd280 for a 60" screen??? FFFFUUUUUU

[Kchrpm]

Giggity :up:

[thesameguy]

MURICA!

[21Kid]

:eek: Nice work. :cool::up:

[Yw-slayer]

MURICA!

Don't you mean CHINESE CHEAP LABOUR, F YEAH!!!! ?

[thesameguy]

I might, but since all the TVs are made in China but they're only this cheap in America, for the time being I have to stick with murica.

[Rare White Ape]

I bought a 55" Panasonic for $1000 at the Boxing Day sale and ticked it up on a 36 month interest free plan.

#STRAYA

[Alan P]

So this deal has come round again and we've got a better 4K choice this year. Again all LG but they seem better than last years single choice.

55UF850V UHD 55" ULTRA HD 4K TV, Smart TV with webOS, CINEMA 3D, 2 x 3D glasses
49UF850V UHD 49" ULTRA HD 4K TV, Smart TV with webOS, CINEMA 3D, 2 x 3D glasses
49UF770V UHD 49" ULTRA HD 4K TV, Smart TV with webOS

3D interests me not, so I'm thinking about going for the bottom option, the 770, although there's only £5 a month difference between that and the 850. The Spec sheets we've been given show NO difference between the two other that the 3D option which doesn't interest me.

There's still nothing wrong with my 42" Plasma but I was watching Captain America The Winter Soldier and started looking at it subjectively. Even with a 42" screen the picture was maybe only 24" high across the screen and I would get so much more visible picture with a bigger TV. Is 42" to 49" a big enough jump do you think? Should I really just bite the bullet and go for the 55"?

[TheBenior]

I went from watching a 42" TV to a 50" in similarly sized rooms, and it was pretty noticeable. Now that I'm in a house instead of a small apartment (though my house and living room are still small compared to modern American McMansion standards), I wouldn't go for less than 55".

[Alan P]

The 49" is £58.67 a month. The 55" is £80.67 a month. 'Only' £23.

[TheBenior]

My main complaint with my 50" now is small, unadjustable size text in some PS4 games. That being said, my glasses being a of couple prescriptions old (I wear contacts when I'm out and about) probably doesn't help with that :lol:

[Yw-slayer]

If you watch a lot of TV, I'd get the 55". Down your neck of the woods, GBP23/month is, what, a 3-course meal in a mid-range restaurant with 1-2 glasses of wine?

[Blerpa]

Go 55. Also go with the 3D version, told by someone that doesn't give a damn about 3D: often the 3D version of TVs have better and deeper brightness spectrum.
You have never enough display... although, out of all the brands out there I'd go with Sony since you are coming from a Panasonic plasma.

[Alan P]

No choice other than LG I'm afraid.

55" comes with 3D.

[Blerpa]

No choice other than LG I'm afraid.
55" comes with 3D.

55" indeed is my suggestion.

[Yw-slayer]

Ah. Not sure I'd give up a Panasonic plasma. I still love our 7-year old model.

[Blerpa]

Ah. Not sure I'd give up a Panasonic plasma. I still love our 7-year old model.

This.
Even if I'd buy a new TV set or a VPR I don't intend to part from my Pana - it will always have a place in this house. 5 years old and still rocking.

[Dicknose]

You could move you sofa closer to the TV!

Not just a joke, most people sit way back.
Try sitting about 1m from your current TV and see if that looks better.

[Blerpa]

People wrongly think that distance rules for old CRT TVs do apply with new high definition flat TVs, be them Plasma, LCD, LCD LED, LCD OLED... the maximum distance to enjoy 1080p Full HD feed on a 42" TV is 1.9 meters; yes, less than 2 meters.
And so on... like a 50" should be seen from max 2.5 meters distance.

[Freude am Fahren]

I was in Best Buy the other day for something unrelated, and mosied on over to the TV section, and was surprised how much 4k prices have come down. There are quite a few models under $1000. I think the smallest 4k is 43" but there were a couple 50" right around that $1k mark. I guess I shouldn't be surprised though.

Got me thinking about how small is worth it to go 4k, but then I realized that 1080p screens in that 40-50" mark aren't much cheaper anyway.

[Alan P]

This.
Even if I'd buy a new TV set or a VPR I don't intend to part from my Pana - it will always have a place in this house. 5 years old and still rocking.

In the end I didn't give it up. I ordered a new 32" 1080p set for the bedroom where I'm still using a 28" Widescreen CRT Philips thing and a new iPad for myself. I couldn't justify 4k when everything I watch isn't 4k and I have no real intention of subscribing to Netflix or Amazon Prime. Maybe next year after 4k players are available and Sky is at least thinking about a 4k capable box.

[21Kid]

Damn...

Samsung UN55HU6840FXZA 55" 4K Ultra HD 240 CMR LED Smart TV with Wi-Fi
$659.99 (http://electronics.woot.com/offers/samsung-55-4k-ultra-hd-led-smart-tv-1)

It's refurbished... But, still.

[thesameguy]

This.
Even if I'd buy a new TV set or a VPR I don't intend to part from my Pana - it will always have a place in this house. 5 years old and still rocking.

That's how you end up with a 12 year old Pioneer 43" plasma in your guest room. :sadbanana:

[Rare White Ape]

Is 42" to 49" a big enough jump do you think? Should I really just bite the bullet and go for the 55"?

Dude. I went from a 40" to a 55", and I STILL sit on the edge of the sofa and lean forward when I play Project Cars.

[Alan P]

That's how you end up with a 12 year old Pioneer 43" plasma in your guest room. :sadbanana:

And it likely still has better blacks than most new TV's.

[Blerpa]

And it likely still has better blacks than most new TV's.

My Pana has better blacks and overall image quality than my mother expensive Samsung LCD LED set, which was bought 3 years after my plasma...

[Alan P]

One of the reasons I wasn't willing to sacrifice image quality for a bigger screen.

[thesameguy]

And it likely still has better blacks than most new TV's.

It might. But lacking HDMI or 1080p and being a foot smaller than the next smallest TV in the house means it gets about zero use. Great image quality that you can't get a signal to isn't all that useful.

[Alan P]

In the end I didn't give it up. I ordered a new 32" 1080p set for the bedroom where I'm still using a 28" Widescreen CRT Philips thing and a new iPad for myself. I couldn't justify 4k when everything I watch isn't 4k and I have no real intention of subscribing to Netflix or Amazon Prime. Maybe next year after 4k players are available and Sky is at least thinking about a 4k capable box.

Well, er, forgot to update this with what I actually ordered. 49" 4k TV. OOPS. Was lucky enough to get a six month free Netflix voucher in the box so have been watching Daredevil and I've heard NARCOS is very good too. Jessica Jones is out next month too!

[Freude am Fahren]

I got a Vizio 43" M-Series 4k TV to replace my 32" in my bedroom. It looks fantastic. The colors and contrast are so much better, and the BluRays I've watched so far look a million times better than on the 1080p smaller screen. The upscaling must work pretty well. That said, I haven't watched any actual 4k content on it yet. It's nice to have a smart TV and not have to switch on another box or cast when I want to watch Netflix or Youtube (though the latter's navigation is rough on the TV)

And it was less than $600. Glad I got the sound bar too because the speakers are the worst I've ever heard when they were on briefly during install.

First thing I did was go in and turn off the interpolation frame rate garbage. I hate how it's like a picture setting, and it's just a slider on how much it does rather than an actual frame rate selection. Still not sure if I'm watching movies in 24p or 30p. Even with it off, it will play youtube 60p clips at 60p, so that's nice.

By the way, it has 5 HDMI's (Nice! no more switching cables!), but only one says 4k60, the rest 30p. Can I assume that the rest will do 1080p60 though?

[Kchrpm]

Yes.

[thesameguy]

http://www.buydig.com/shop/product/LG55EF9500/LG-55EF9500-55-Inch-2160p-4K-UHD-Smart-3D-Flat-OLED-TV-w-webOS-20?sdtid=8407761&omid=200&ref=cj&utm_source=CJ&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_content=1225267

$2550 for a 4k OLED and you get a free 42" LCD TV to boot. This time next year 4k OLEDs will be downright affordable. Crazy!

[Jason]

I was just talking to Keith about that and the 65" version the other day. I can't wait until OLED is affordable. I want a bigger tv, but I haven't been impressed by anything (I currently own a plasma) other than OLED.

[TheBenior]

I'm the same way. After looking at TVs at a Best Buy, I need my Panasonic TC-P50G25 plasma (bought in late 2009) to hold out until 60"+ OLEDs drop further in price.

[thesameguy]

I am happy with my TV, but I bought it cheap last year knowing that OLED would be the ultimate goal in a couple years. I was expecting 2017 or 2018, but man, all signs point to 2017. It's been a long time since I looked at a TV expecting a long life... but I feel like there simply isn't anything past 4k OLED in the foreseeable future. The rush from projection->plasma->LCD->720p->1080p->60Hz->120Hz->side lit->back lit->local dimming->3d->4k->OLED has been an obvious, nonstop 15 year ride. Now that we're here I don't hear anyone talking about the next big thing. I guess you could say 8k or whatever the next giant pixel push is, but 4k has low adoption and crap for technologies even capable of delivering it. I guess we'll see what that assholes in consumer electronics cook up for us this year. :lol:

[Jason]

I went from 24" CRT (5 years) to 42" 720p plasma (8? years) and I'm guessing my next thing is 60-65" OLED (I don't care if it's 1080p or 4k, because it won't matter at my couch distance).

There's a 55" OLED that is pretty reasonable $1700-2000, but it's curved, and I'm not feeling a curved TV.

[thesameguy]

http://i.imgur.com/ff6OZH6.gif

Stop trying to make curved happen.

[Jason]

:up:

Ditto for 3D and 4k (at least at smaller sizes)

[Alan P]

As mentioned I did buy a 4k LG 49". It doesn't have 3D (on purpose) and it did come with 6 months free Netflix so I've watched some 4k stuff and, TBH, I've seen better on Blu-Ray. Doesn;t help that it was Daredevil so there were a lot of dark scenes perhaps.

Which has reminded me to cancel my Netflix. The 6 months free trial finished on 12/01 so it was good timing.

[LHutton]

I went from 24" CRT (5 years) to 42" 720p plasma (8? years) and I'm guessing my next thing is 60-65" OLED (I don't care if it's 1080p or 4k, because it won't matter at my couch distance).

There's a 55" OLED that is pretty reasonable $1700-2000, but it's curved, and I'm not feeling a curved TV.

Well if you don't like curved,don't get it, because you pay a lot more for curved.

[Jason]

Well if you don't like curved,don't get it, because you pay a lot more for curved.

The cheapest OLED is a 55" 1080p set from LG... that is curved.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Seems exhausting.

[Yw-slayer]

It's how he seeks attention.

[LHutton]

The cheapest OLED is a 55" 1080p set from LG... that is curved.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Seems exhausting.
I must confess, I hadn't looked at it in depth, I read a brochure from John Lewis and curved TVs seemed to cost more. That said, curved has gotten some bad reviews it seems.

Not sure I was wrong??? That said, don't care.

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-and-home-entertainment/televisions/televisions/301_3002_30002_xx_ba00004464-bv00308620%7Cbv00298763/xx-criteria.html

[Kchrpm]

If you actually checked the link you just posted, you'd see the cheapest curved OLED TV is 1299 (http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-and-home-entertainment/televisions/televisions/lg-55ec930v-smart-3d-55-curved-oled-tv-10071516-pdt.html) and the cheapest flat OLED is 2299 (http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-and-home-entertainment/televisions/televisions/lg-55ef950v-smart-3d-ultra-hd-4k-55-oled-tv-10137727-pdt.html).

But why bother checking your link to make sure it actually says what you think it does? You don't care!

[LHutton]

If you actually checked the link you just posted, you'd see the cheapest curved OLED TV is 1299 (http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-and-home-entertainment/televisions/televisions/lg-55ec930v-smart-3d-55-curved-oled-tv-10071516-pdt.html) and the cheapest flat OLED is 2299 (http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-and-home-entertainment/televisions/televisions/lg-55ef950v-smart-3d-ultra-hd-4k-55-oled-tv-10137727-pdt.html).

But why bother checking your link to make sure it actually says what you think it does? You don't care!
Umm.... no. Both those ones are curved on my link. But you're taking this casual comment way too seriously.



LG 55EG960V Smart 3D Ultra HD 4k 55" Curved OLED TV


4k Ultra HD picture is 4 times the resolution of HD
Curved screen for immersive viewing
Smart: Catch up TV & App Store
Tuner: Freeview HD
Connectivity: HDMI 2.0 x 3

£2,299.00 Save £1,500.00
Was £3,799.00 (from 25/03/15 to 26/08/15)




LG 55EC930V Smart 3D 55" Curved OLED TV


Full HD 1080p
Smart: Catch up TV & App Store
Passive 3D: 2 x glasses and 2 x clip-on glasses included
Tuner: Freeview HD
Built-in WiFi

£1,299.00 Save £310.00
Was £1,609.00 (from 12/11/15 to 10/12/15)
FREE delivery available
FREE collect in store available

[Kchrpm]

No, you went to your link and found different TVs than I did. Click on your link again, then filter on OLED TVs. Or click here (http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-and-home-entertainment/televisions/televisions/301_3002_30002_xx_ba00004464-bv00308620%7Cbv00298763-ba00004484-bv00298768/xx_xx_xx_xx_4-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-21-22-criteria.html)

Look at the top three results. You'll see the two curved OLED TVs whose specs you have quoted, and then the flat OLED TV I linked to earlier. Like the more expensive curved OLED TV, it is 4K, which is likely why the price is higher, but it proves the point that flat is not necessarily cheaper.

But you don't care! So why does it matter.

[LHutton]

Okay, filtered on OLED, most expensive curved, cheapest flat. It's 100% clear.

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-and-home-entertainment/televisions/televisions/301_3002_30002_xx_ba00004464-bv00308620%7Cbv00298763-ba00004484-bv00298768-ba00008844-bv00305769/xx_xx_xx_xx_4-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-21-22-criteria.html

[thesameguy]

https://anotherschwab.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/miss-the-point.png

[Jason]

I'm sorry I started this by actually viewing one of his posts. I assumed since it wasn't politics, he might actually have something to add, but nope. And then of course I had to respond.

My deepest and most sincere apologies. :(

[Yw-slayer]

It's cool, bro, we all make mistakes from time to time.

[thesameguy]

I prefer not to stop, making little mistakes more often. Something something.

[LHutton]

Show me an equivalent curved screen that's cheaper in the link and I'll happily admit I'm wrong.

http://www.johnlewis.com/browse/electricals/televisions/all-tvs/size=55-to-60/_/N-6srfZ1z0ojbg

OLED Ultra HD
http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-and-home-entertainment/televisions/televisions/301_3002_30002_xx_ba00004464-bv00308620%7Cbv00298763-ba00004484-bv00298768%7Cbv00298765-ba00008844-bv00305769/xx_xx_xx_xx_4-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-21-22-criteria.html

LED and OLEDs HD and Ultra HD
http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-and-home-entertainment/televisions/televisions/301_3002_30002_xx_ba00004464-bv00308620%7Cbv00298763-ba00004484-bv00298768-ba00008844-bv00305769/xx_xx_xx_xx_4-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-21-22-criteria.html

[Kchrpm]

I thought you didn't care?

[LHutton]

I didn't until everyone made a big deal out of it. What I said here is 100% true:

http://gtxforums.net/showthread.php?794-4K-yay-or-4K-nay&p=59810&viewfull=1#post59810

Which was then followed by pointless disagreement to try create an argument out of nothing.

[thesameguy]

Except what you said is not true; your statement is an absolute ("you pay more") when you should have said "you might pay more" - you need a modal auxiliary in there to indicate your statement is a possibility, not a fact. Because the cheapest OLED you can buy right now is, in fact, a curved screen. Check yourself before you wreck yourself, mate.

[LHutton]

Except what you said is not true; your statement is an absolute ("you pay more") when you should have said "you might pay more" - you need a modal auxiliary in there to indicate your statement is a possibility, not a fact. Because the cheapest OLED you can buy right now is, in fact, a curved screen. Check yourself before you wreck yourself, mate.
That's because it's the only HD one, and you're comparing it to Ultra HD and it just happens to be an oddball case because there is no flat-screen HD OLED at that size. Obviously, when I said, "you pay more for curved," I meant like for like, not take the lowest spec curved TV and compare it with a higher spec flat-screen. I really shouldn't have to spell that out and I didn't say anything about OLED. I'm talking about the change of 1 variable, flat to curved, and its affect on price, anything else is unscientific. If you're not bothered about Ultra HD, why be bother about OLED? LED is much cheaper and the picture quality is fine and again, the flat-screens are cheaper... like for like.

As an example, if I say, "you pay more for Ultra HD," that's not an invitation to find the smallest Ultra HD flat-screen TV you can find and compare it with the largest, curved HD screen you can find, and then use that to start a random argument.

[thesameguy]

I MAKE A BUNCH OF ASSUMPTIONS AND JUDGMENT CALLS AND YOU NEED TO MAKE THE SAME ONES!

[LHutton]

I MAKE A BUNCH OF ASSUMPTIONS AND JUDGMENT CALLS AND YOU NEED TO MAKE THE SAME ONES!
No, don't even come at me with that absolute bullshit. If I say Force is directly proportional to acceleration, it's not a legitimate comeback to say, "but one object might have less mass, so you're wrong." My statement is still correct, but yes there is another variable to consider. It's not an assumption for the logical mind. FFS, look at the cost of 1080p monitors vs 4K monitors of the same size. That's why it's cheaper, not because my original statement was wrong.

The correct response to my first post would have been something along the lines of, "indeed it does, but HD is much cheaper than Ultra HD, and the only HD OLED TV in this size is curved, making it the cheapest OLED. The nature of the response made an argument for no reason.

[Jason]

TL;DR

[LHutton]

Cliffs: Don't compare apples to oranges as a basis for disproving a fact.

[Kchrpm]

Cliff Notes: Jason said that he couldn't find a 55" OLED flat TV for cheaper than a 55" OLED curved TV. LHutton provided a store link that proved Jason was correct. Delicious cookies were shared among the gathered crowd.

[LHutton]

On a plus note for curved TVs, they would be easier to shove up your arse sideways.:)

[thesameguy]

Da fuq? I didn't get any cookies. But someone did just bring donuts into the office so I can't complain. Until I eat them all, anyway.

[balki]

how cheap can OLEDs get in the next few years?
LG is the only one really developing them. Once everyone realizes they're better than CRTs and plasmas what's the point of trying to get them down anywhere near shit LEDs?
seems like they might continue to plummet for another year and then relatively level off

ps; for 99% of the consumers now 4k is just going to upscale a heavily compressed 720p/1080i transmission (unless you're using it as a computer monitor)

[Jason]

I'm not holding my breath on them dropping too much in price. The vast majority of people are very happy with LEDs, and I think OLED is tough/expensive to manufacture... so why not sell a LED set for a higher markup that happens to still be 'affordable'?

I'll likely end up with the curved 1080p set by the end of 2016 if nothing drops in price.

[thesameguy]

I think Pioneer and Panasonic both have an investment in OLED - but without a bunch of heavy hitters development will be slow. Still, if you can buy an OLED set *now* for $2500 they are already making good headway. I have no idea what actually goes into manufacturing OLED, though, so I'm just speaking from likely market outcomes and not about actual production possibilities. ;)

[Alan P]

I thought Pioneer gave up on the TV business a good few years ago when people stopped buying their (vastly) superior but also very expensive 'Kuro' Plasmas in favour of wholly inferior in just about every way but also substantially cheaper LCD TV's? Any Pioneer TV these days is just a licenced name and has very little to do with the Pioneer TV's of old?

[thesameguy]

I believe that's true, but Pioneer does use OLED displays elsewhere, so they are doing R&D and, conceivably, might reenter the market if they could make a business case for it.

[LHutton]

What about nano crystal as an alternative to OLED.

[thesameguy]

I think OLED is still the better technology because it does not rely on a backlight. However, this is probably plasma vs LCD all over again.

[LHutton]

I'm of the opinion that half way through watching a film you're just not going to give a shit.

[Kchrpm]

And you can you buy whatever you want based on that opinion. Some people ARE going to give a shit, though, which is why they chose a plasma or whatever in the first place, and they don't want to "upgrade" unnecessarily to something that will be outperformed in a way that is important to them.

[LHutton]

If they're upgrading, they're probably not going to be disappointed anyway. Sometimes I think it's a case of people convincing themselves that they need to tick a box.

[Kchrpm]

A good plasma has deeper blacks than everything but OLEDs and maybe the best LCD TVs (which cost multiple thousands of dollars because they have a high number of separate LED panels behind the screen that can be controlled separately). Someone who bought a plasma because they preferred the contrast and black levels it provided will be disappointed if they upgrade to an inexpensive LCD.

I don't know anything about the nanocrystal TVs, so I can't comment on them.

[thesameguy]

The primary attraction of nanocrystal TVs is being able to tell people you have a quantum dot display, and that's *almost* worth the price of admission. By comparison, OLED has existed for, what, 15 years? Not nearly at sci-fi.

[Kchrpm]

I was interested in Mitsubishi's Laser TVs because all of the reviews said the colors were incredible. Alas, flat TVs are the future, unless Sony's short throw projector tech makes some major strides.

[Jason]

Fan boy.

[thesameguy]

I am out of touch, but I think while lasers are cool, quantum > all.

[Random]

QUANTUM DOT

> . <

[LHutton]

How long do people actually spend watching black screens though? It's ironic, because with monitors people rave about amazing IPS display colour, even though the blacks are actually worse than TN. But when it comes to TV, somehow the blacks are all important.

[Dicknose]

Monitors and tablet displays are generally used in bright environments. Contrast ratios are good, but will get washed out by background light.
A tv screen is best used in a dark(er) environment and is meant to be more immersive.

[Kchrpm]

It's not about pure black screens, it's about their being depth and contrast in very dark scenes (at night, in space, etc). Being able to see detail in shadows, having a starry night truly look like small points of light breaking through a huge emptiness.

You know those setup screens on video games that have you adjust the brightness until you can see certain bars? Think of being able to distinctly see more of those. I know in games like Splinter Cell, where almost the entire thing is played in darkness, being able to see small differences in shadows is huge.

*googles black level tests*

http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/black.php


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtAv7IREjVk

Of course, different people will have different sensitivity to and preference for this, just like we do with colors. What is fine for some people will be disappointing to others, and it's up to the individual to decide where to spend their money.

[LHutton]

For a generation that grew up with CRT, pretty much any modern TV offers bat shit crazy good picture quality. And of course, at the time, nobody said to themselves, "damn this picture is terrible, I can't wait for OLED TVs to come out in 25 years time."

[Jason]

TSG, you asked... and now you have a new 'thing'

This year it's HDR TV!

http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/2/10701218/lg-lcd-tv-ces-2016-hdr-plus

Oh, and 8k! http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/02/lg-8k-tv/

[Kchrpm]

For a generation that grew up with CRT, pretty much any modern TV offers bat shit crazy good picture quality. And of course, at the time, nobody said to themselves, "damn this picture is terrible, I can't wait for OLED TVs to come out in 25 years time."
Good CRTs had excellent black levels, much better than LCDs. The jump in resolution is why current TVs look better than the CRTs we are used to overall, but there were HD-capable CRT TVs and monitors. Flat screens other benefits outweighed that, obviously, and, like I've said, probably for most people the current picture quality is just fine.

But there is a difference, which is easily noticeable to some even without side-by-side comparison (I distinctly remember being surprised at how PGR2 looked on Carlo's LAN-party LCD compared to my CRT, all of the shadowy areas were just grey), and when spending several hundred or more of their own dollars, people are more than justified in being picky about it. Even if, 25 years ago, they weren't thinking about it.

[LHutton]

TSG, you asked... and now you have a new 'thing'

This year it's HDR TV!

http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/2/10701218/lg-lcd-tv-ces-2016-hdr-plus

Oh, and 8k! http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/02/lg-8k-tv/
Given how small the difference between 1440p and 4K is on my monitor and how close you have to get to notice it, for a TV this is simply a tick in box capability for pub bragging right. Right now I'm looking at a reduced size version of that 8K image on a 4K monitor thinking how awesome it looks.:lol:

Already there are 5K monitors... for $2500, which is more than the cost of a great gaming rig, and your FPS will suck balls at 5K unless you have like 3 Titan Xs for the likes of Assassins Creed Syndicate and you'll need a magnifying glass to see the Windows 10 default font size.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/dell-monitor-display-5k-ultrasharp,27613.html

You just know people will buy 8K TVs and you just know none of them can actually tell the difference between 8K and 4K.

[LHutton]

Good CRTs had excellent black levels, much better than LCDs. The jump in resolution is why current TVs look better than the CRTs we are used to overall, but there were HD-capable CRT TVs and monitors. Flat screens other benefits outweighed that, obviously, and, like I've said, probably for most people the current picture quality is just fine.

But there is a difference, which is easily noticeable to some even without side-by-side comparison (I distinctly remember being surprised at how PGR2 looked on Carlo's LAN-party LCD compared to my CRT, all of the shadowy areas were just grey), and when spending several hundred or more of their own dollars, people are more than justified in being picky about it. Even if, 25 years ago, they weren't thinking about it.
Precisely why I wouldn't bother.

[Kchrpm]

Well the presumption is they are upgrading anyway (whether their current TV is dying or they want to go up in size), but yeah, a lot of current TV tech isn't worth upgrading for by itself. Hence why I currently have a ~7 year old DLP.

[LHutton]

I got a 40" HD LCD a few years ago and find it more than adequate. The reason I debated the value of the technologies is because that's kind of debate sparked by the heading. It's a fair question and I don't think HD vs Ultra HD matters from TV viewing range. It's only just worth it at monitor range.

[Kchrpm]

HD vs Ultra HD, like HD vs SD, can be very dependent on your TV size. When everyone was watching 20-27" TVs from 9 or 10 feet away, SD TVs were fine. As LCDs over 40" kept dropping in price, it became a no brainer to go for HD. Prices are still dropping, and TVs are still getting bigger.

So in 5-10 years, if $1000 buys you an 80+ inch TV, then 4K will matter for almost everyone.

[LHutton]

I don't see them dropping that low in price. Whilst technology products often come down, computers are definitely more expensive now than 6 years ago (about 50% more for same spec relative to today's market) and accommodation starts becoming an issue before 80 inches anyway. But I see what you're saying, if the TV is bigger then resolution could become important, at least for 4K anyway. I've calculated that 55 inches is about the maximum size TV I can actually fit on the plinth in the corner of the lounge, back when most domestic TVs were about 24" in the late '70s and early '80s it probably seemed like a massive over-provision. You'll need one heck of a big TV to justify 8K though, 160 inches (>13ft). If such a trend were to continue, cinemas may go the way of video game arcades.

[Kchrpm]

Despite Jason's teasing, I am seriously curious what can happen with the ultra short throw projector tech that Sony is currently selling for the price of a luxury car.

Right now you're basically sticking a low, narrow table against your wall. When you turn it on, it turns into a screen up to 147" diagonally. And all that for only $50k!!! Hey, where are you going...

http://www.sony.com/electronics/projectors-4k/lspx-w1s

http://www.sony.net/Products/4k-ultra-short-throw/

But again, fast forward 5-10 years, will companies be selling one that just looks like a shelf until you turn it on and it blasts an 80" screen on your wall? And will it cost under 2 grand? I don't know how the market would react to that, either. Sure, you wouldn't have the big black rectangle on the wall that some people are averse to, but you'd still have to keep that section of the wall blank (and maybe white, unless there's some major color correction it can do).

But that's some big supposing. We may all be using VR headsets by then.

There are a lot of different paths and forks in the road, I can see a few of them but I have no idea which ones the technology and market are going to take.

[thesameguy]

computers are definitely more expensive now than 6 years ago (about 50% more for same spec relative to today's market)

Gordon Moore just called and asked for your email address. He wanted to let you know you're insane. I told him I did not have your email but would relay the message.

[Jason]

Do modern short throw projectors fix the historical problem projectors have competing with other light sources?

[Yw-slayer]

Gordon Moore just called and asked for your email address. He wanted to let you know you're insane. I told him I did not have your email but would relay the message.

Just stop speaking to him. That is, unless you enjoy talking to someone who just talks absolute bollocks for the sake of grabbing attention.

(then someone will post some Googled articles about why Moore's law might not apply going forward which will, again, miss the point entirely)

[Kchrpm]

Do modern short throw projectors fix the historical problem projectors have competing with other light sources?

No idea. Apparently the only way to see one in person is to schedule an appointment at their Manhattan store :| My guess is one of the reasons it's so exclusive is because it does still take a special setup.

[thesameguy]

Just stop speaking to him. That is, unless you enjoy talking to someone who just talks absolute bollocks for the sake of grabbing attention.

(then someone will post some Googled articles about why Moore's law might not apply going forward which will, again, miss the point entirely)

It's cool bro, I have $500,000 worth of receipts documenting hundreds of $1000 PCs purchased over the last decade READY TO GO.

[LHutton]

Gordon Moore just called and asked for your email address. He wanted to let you know you're insane. I told him I did not have your email but would relay the message.
Obviously if you want to buy 6 year old technology now it's cheaper, but 6 year old technology simply won't run most modern games successfully. So defunct and functionally useless technology is cheaper sure, for the same reason second hand cars are cheaper. And you can only buy 6 year old computer technology second hand, so your point is null and void. But yes, it's the sort of logic governments use to twist official inflation figures.

Dells sure as shit are not cheaper. An XPS Studio 8700 with an i7-860 and GTX460 and Sound card and a 22 inch HD monitor was £900 6 years ago, with Windows 7, Office and anti-virus. Now it costs £1100 with i7-6600K and GTX960, which is today's equivalent spec, you get no monitor, no Office, no anti-virus, no sound card, no fucking CD/DVD drive. Add all that on and it's £1500+ for a very mediocre spec PC by today's standards. I was surprised by how eye-gouging the costs had become. So Moore's law is simply irrelevant to anyone who doesn't use 6 year old applications. JFC, if people wanted a 6 year old PC, they just wouldn't buy a new one, so the cost of 6 year old tech is entirely irrelevant, especially when the tech is no longer being sold.

This is why Moore's law applies to technical progress but not cost. When the new technology comes out, it's more expensive and they stop selling the old tech, largely because it's obsolete. So the cost of obsolete, no longer sold items, shouldn't be used as a measure of inflation. Try a) buying a i486 PC with Windows 3.1, b) using it to actually do anything, and you'll see my point.

[balki]

budget laptops are at an old-time low, you can get an i5 for under $400

For a generation that grew up with CRT, pretty much any modern TV offers bat shit crazy good picture quality. And of course, at the time, nobody said to themselves, "damn this picture is terrible, I can't wait for OLED TVs to come out in 25 years time."
CRT's came in flat screen (not thin panel) and HD, both superior to LED and plasma's at the time. The biggest problem was size and weight. 34" screens went 20" deep and weighed 200lb while 40" screen got up to 300lbs (people complain that plasmas are too thick and heavy 4" at 60lbs)

[21Kid]

A good plasma has deeper blacks than everything but OLEDs and maybe the best LCD TVs (which cost multiple thousands of dollars because they have a high number of separate LED panels behind the screen that can be controlled separately). Someone who bought a plasma because they preferred the contrast and black levels it provided will be disappointed if they upgrade to an inexpensive LCD.
They aren't that much more expensive.
(All?) Vizio (http://smile.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=vizio)'s LED's have full-array zone lighting. Even the cheap $350/40in ones. Some of them had edge lighting for a while, when people wanted the thinnest possible. But, I think they realized that it wasn't worth it to save .234 inches when full array is much better. The bigger & more expensive TVs, have more panels. 16 zones or 32, I believe. But, from what I have seen lately, they gave up on edge lighting. Or at least on the screens I've been looking at.

[Kchrpm]

It's good that the baseline is getting higher, but the high end stuff, like Vizio's Reference Series (http://www.vizio.com/r-series) with 384 zones, is still up there ($6k for a 65").

[thesameguy]

you'll see my point.

I don't think an eagle could see your point, TBH.

I read that post three times and still have no idea what you're trying to say.

[21Kid]

Well, of course there are going to be bigger & better ones. ;) I was just saying that full-array isn't always thousands more. :)
I like how that 120" one costs $130k. :lol: Shop now!

[LHutton]

I don't think an eagle could see your point, TBH.

I read that post three times and still have no idea what you're trying to say.
It's fairly obvious really. Old technology is obsolete and incapable of running present software, so the fact that it's theoretically cheaper (if you could still buy it) is irrelevant. The price of a system equivalent relative to the moving baseline is higher and always will be. If a company kept selling the same product cheaper each year, the number of investors would be exactly zero. It's a con job used to keep inflation figures lower than they really are.

[thesameguy]

The price of a system equivalent relative to the moving baseline is higher and always will be.

Okay, now we are back to the root, and this is insane. I buy $1000 computers for the office. It's just what I do, and I have for 10 years.

In 2006 a $1000 computer was a Pentium D 830 3.0GHz with 2gb of RAM and an 80gb hard drive. A DVDRW was extra cost. Intel integrated graphics, built-in Broadcom Ethernet and Realtek sound. Windows XP Pro 32-bit.
In 2009 a $1000 computer was a Core2Duo E7500 or E8400 3.0GHz with 2gb of RAM and a 160gb or 250gb hard drive. DVD-RW drive. Intel integrated graphics, built-in Intel Ethernet and Realtek sound. Windows 7 Pro 32-bit.
In 2012 a $1000 computer was a Core i5 3470S 2.9GHz with 4gb of RAM and a 1tb hard drive. DVD-RW drive. Intel HD Graphics 2500, built in Atheros Ethernet and Realtek sound. Windows 7 Pro 64-bit.
In 2015 a $1000 computer was a Core i5-6500 3.2GHz Processor with 8gb RAM and either a 1tb hard drive or 256gb SSD. Intel HD Graphics 530, built in Intel Ethernet and Realtek sound. Windows 7 Pro 64-bit or Windows 10 Pro 64-bit.

Each one of these was a MASSIVE leap in performance at the same price point. Each one of these machines is smack-dab in the middle of the performance spectrum with mid-range processors, RAM loadouts, and storage capacity. These are all commodity office-grade machines - hence the same price point and me buying lots and lots of them. Computers in general got much, much cheaper in the early '90s and then again in the early '00s. Since around 2003 or 2004 computers have remained at about the same price across the board ("low," "medium," and "high" spec) while delivering more performance for the same price. So, if a $1000 computer is a mid-range office machine regardless of when you bought it in the last ten years, since inflation decreases the value of any monetary unit, computers of the same spec within the grand computer landscape at a point in time have gotten CHEAPER, not more expensive. Your assertion that the same relatively level of performance costs more annually is utterly, demonstrably false.

We can do laptops next if you like. I don't buy hundreds of them, but I do buy dozens.

Edit: We can also do gaming machines. I've got a few dozen XPS models ranging from the 435t with i7-950s to new XPS 8900s with i7-6700s. These are $2k price point boxes. Typically top-end i7s, the biggest hard drives, lately small SSDs, and mid-range discrete graphics.

[21Kid]

:lol:

[thesameguy]

Dells sure as shit are not cheaper. An XPS Studio 8700 with an i7-860 and GTX460 and Sound card and a 22 inch HD monitor was £900 6 years ago, with Windows 7, Office and anti-virus. Now it costs £1100 with i7-6600K and GTX960, which is today's equivalent spec, you get no monitor, no Office, no anti-virus, no sound card, no fucking CD/DVD drive.

Also, check your facts. There was never an XPS 8700 with a 1st gen i7. The 8700 debuted with Ivy Bridge i7s. The i7-850 was a low-end processor. The i7-6600k doesn't even exist. All XPS desktops include optical drives. Unless you produce a receipt, I will never, ever believe that £900 included any version of Office, even a free trial.

[21Kid]

Can we please get back to drooling over useless pixels?

HDTVs at CES 2016: 4K Has Finally Arrived (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2497162,00.asp)

Of course, with 4K becoming the Current Big Thing, the HDTV industry is already looking towards what the Next Big Thing is. That is high dynamic range (HDR) content. HDR greatly expands the amount of light and color information a video signal can hold. This doesn't affect the number of pixels like 4K; instead, each pixel is capable of showing a wider range of light.

[Jason]

Any new OLED news? Because that's what I care about. :|

[21Kid]

Me too. Seems like LG is the only one making big investments in it. :|

LG Display to Spend About $9 Billion on Factory for OLEDs - November 26, 2015

LG is jumping head-first into the flexible display game at CES 2016, where it will be showing off its latest innovations in OLED and LCD technology.

LG Secures Super Bowl Slot And Ridley Scott For OLED Commercial

LG will show off its paper-thin, rollable OLED panel at CES
http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/midas/9dd9a766c04af5266a93c20085e727dd/203205033/CES+2016_18+inch+Rollable+OLED.jpg

[Jason]

Woah, that's neat :up:

[thesameguy]

I think it's reasons like that that OLED is probably the long-term bet. Even though nanocrystals can net some good results, the actual displays don't have the same flexibility that OLED does. OLED screens are thin and require little power, and you just can't say that about anything that requires a backlight (relatively speaking!). It's really a similar situation as LCD - plasma may have had the better picture, but plasma displays don't go on watches, on laptops (unless you're Toshiba and it's 1990), and in cars. LCD goes all those places so there were lots of people developing and pushing. I think OLED is going to benefit from those same economies. Nanocrystal is really only good for one thing - larger, non-portable displays.

[LHutton]

Okay, now we are back to the root, and this is insane. I buy $1000 computers for the office. It's just what I do, and I have for 10 years.

In 2006 a $1000 computer was a Pentium D 830 3.0GHz with 2gb of RAM and an 80gb hard drive. A DVDRW was extra cost. Intel integrated graphics, built-in Broadcom Ethernet and Realtek sound. Windows XP Pro 32-bit.
In 2009 a $1000 computer was a Core2Duo E7500 or E8400 3.0GHz with 2gb of RAM and a 160gb or 250gb hard drive. DVD-RW drive. Intel integrated graphics, built-in Intel Ethernet and Realtek sound. Windows 7 Pro 32-bit.
In 2012 a $1000 computer was a Core i5 3470S 2.9GHz with 4gb of RAM and a 1tb hard drive. DVD-RW drive. Intel HD Graphics 2500, built in Atheros Ethernet and Realtek sound. Windows 7 Pro 64-bit.
In 2015 a $1000 computer was a Core i5-6500 3.2GHz Processor with 8gb RAM and either a 1tb hard drive or 256gb SSD. Intel HD Graphics 530, built in Intel Ethernet and Realtek sound. Windows 7 Pro 64-bit or Windows 10 Pro 64-bit.

Each one of these was a MASSIVE leap in performance at the same price point. Each one of these machines is smack-dab in the middle of the performance spectrum with mid-range processors, RAM loadouts, and storage capacity. These are all commodity office-grade machines - hence the same price point and me buying lots and lots of them. Computers in general got much, much cheaper in the early '90s and then again in the early '00s. Since around 2003 or 2004 computers have remained at about the same price across the board ("low," "medium," and "high" spec) while delivering more performance for the same price. So, if a $1000 computer is a mid-range office machine regardless of when you bought it in the last ten years, since inflation decreases the value of any monetary unit, computers of the same spec within the grand computer landscape at a point in time have gotten CHEAPER, not more expensive. Your assertion that the same relatively level of performance costs more annually is utterly, demonstrably false.

We can do laptops next if you like. I don't buy hundreds of them, but I do buy dozens.

Edit: We can also do gaming machines. I've got a few dozen XPS models ranging from the 435t with i7-950s to new XPS 8900s with i7-6700s. These are $2k price point boxes. Typically top-end i7s, the biggest hard drives, lately small SSDs, and mid-range discrete graphics.
Disagree completely. I spent a lot of time looking only recently, and noted that the prices were definitely higher in general. So high in fact that I initially decided to delay buying a PC for a few years, and if my hard drive hadn't packed in, that's exactly what I would have done.

$1000 PC anywhere? Nope. Doesn't even come with Office (30 day trial only), so add another £100 ($150). Thank you, drive through.

http://www.dell.com/uk/p/xps-8900-desktop/pd?ref=PD_OC

For the price of the top range XPS 8900 with GTX750, I got a top of XPS 8300 range PC with i7-860, + GTX 460... with a sound card... and Office... and a fucking colour printer/scanner/fax machine/photo-copier 6 years ago. Add them on to the XPS 8900 and you have £1500+. Devaluation of currency? Well I haven't seen salaries go up 50% in the last 6 years.

Now to get a Dell with a GTX960, you have to buy Alienware. This is where the prices get truly comical. £1480 for a GTX960 PC with the cheapest monitor option (£411 for 24 inch monitor). No Office, so add another £116 and it's just under £1600. So we're now at $2500 at current exchange rate for a system that is mediocre. Oh add sound card -> £1700-£1800. There's a damn good reason I broke a 15 year habbit of always buying a Dell.

http://www.dell.com/uk/p/alienware-x51-r3/pd?ref=PD_OC#overrides=d00ar320:6~GTX960;6424~P241 5Q

My final spec, if bought from Dell, would cost well over £2000 with no monitor.


Also, check your facts. There was never an XPS 8700 with a 1st gen i7. The 8700 debuted with Ivy Bridge i7s. The i7-850 was a low-end processor. The i7-6600k doesn't even exist. All XPS desktops include optical drives. Unless you produce a receipt, I will never, ever believe that £900 included any version of Office, even a free trial.
XPS 8300 sorry.

[thesameguy]

http://s3media.247sports.com/Uploads/Boards/73/21073/75058.jpg

[LHutton]

If they sold relatively equal kit for less, their share price index would look like a cliff face. Basic economics.

Data also shows the lack of a consistent reduction in price from 1993 to 2008. Note Core 2 Due higher than Celeron II. i5 PC significantly lower but I bet if we had the next 7 years, it would go up. Sure as hell no i5-6600K PCs for $380, the CPU alone costs >$300. You can't even buy the parts for twice that figure.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Intel-i5-6600K/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3AIntel%20i5%206600K

http://barndoorcycling.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/computer-price-graph.jpg

[thesameguy]

Hey man, if you say so.

You know, my first Dell System 200 cost over five grand. Dell doesn't even sell a $5,000 computer anymore. It's a god damn miracle they're in business, taunting basic economics like that!

http://www.wallpapername.com/thumbnails/detail/20121121/mind%20blown%20photomanipulations%201920x1080%20wa llpaper_www.wallpapername.com_72.jpg

[Alan P]

So I'm downloading a 4k rip of Elysium. It's 46.6GB. I hope my wireless can keep up with the stream because I'm going to try and watch it through my TV, from my PC.

[Jason]

Speaking of 4k (in the US)... Once 4k streaming hits the big time, I imagine Comcast, Cox, Time Warner, etc will start implementing harsh data caps. I know Comcast is testing a 300gb(?) limit right now. Watch a handful of movies? You're screwed, pay up!

[thesameguy]

Man, lemme know how that turns out! What's the bitrate on a 4.6gb file??

[LHutton]

Hey man, if you say so.

You know, my first Dell System 200 cost over five grand. Dell doesn't even sell a $5,000 computer anymore. It's a god damn miracle they're in business, taunting basic economics like that!

http://www.wallpapername.com/thumbnails/detail/20121121/mind%20blown%20photomanipulations%201920x1080%20wa llpaper_www.wallpapername.com_72.jpg
Sure they do, if you spec an Alienware Area 51 high enough, you can get to £5,000.

http://www.dell.com/uk/p/alienware-area51-r2/pd?ref=PD_OC

I can even find you $15k gaming PCs. FFS, a single graphics card can cost nearly $1500.

I'm comparing prices with 6 years ago, because I examined the market at both those times, not looking at prices back when Jesus was a baby. And the prices aren't cheaper in the UK market, they just aren't, I know because I was the buyer, so you can try sell it however you like but it's irrefutable.

£/MB has reduced but the amount of MBs needed has increased and the overall net effect is higher prices at the actual point of payment.

[21Kid]

When are the new codecs going to be ready? That should reduce the bandwidth needed.

[Yw-slayer]

http://www.wallpapername.com/thumbnails/detail/20121121/mind%20blown%20photomanipulations%201920x1080%20wa llpaper_www.wallpapername.com_72.jpg

Told you life is better when you ignore that stuff.

[Kchrpm]

Speaking of HDR TVs

http://gizmodo.com/sonys-new-tv-tech-is-so-intense-i-cant-even-photograph-1751271335


According to Sony, the technology is capable of producing a brightness up to 4000 nits—current top flagship TV models top out at about 1000. The company also claims that Backlight Master Drive allows the prototypes to achieve the deep inky blackness usually reserved for OLED TVs—Sony doesn’t use that display technology, opting instead for LED.

I can only speak to the results, which are striking. In one clip from the movie Annie, I was blinded by sunlight reflecting off water. Later, while watching a scene shot over the flashing lights of the Las Vegas strip, the deep darkness of the night is still visible behind the gaudy casinos. (As always, you should be wary of company-controlled demos. Actual results may vary.)

[21Kid]

:up:

[Alan P]

So I'm downloading a 4k rip of Elysium. It's 46.6GB. I hope my wireless can keep up with the stream because I'm going to try and watch it through my TV, from my PC.

Turns out the file is a MKV which the TV won't play. :(

I'd try and convert it to MP4 but it will likely take days for a file that size.

[Yw-slayer]

Maybe a day at most. See what Handbrake says when you start the conversion.

[thesameguy]

Anything that uses GPU acceleration (DVDFab, Adobe Premiere) could knock out a movie in an hour, maybe two at most. Look for that!

[Yw-slayer]

Plus I'm sure he has a monster graphics card, so it shouldn't be an issue.

[stephenb]

For those genuinely interested in 4K, HDR, UHD Bluray etc then I'd suggest making sure your next set is certified as UHD Premium by the UHD Alliance. Might finally be the year to upgrade to something bigger.

https://www.avforums.com/article/ces-2016-hdr-4k-ultra-hd-tv-comparison.12250
https://www.avforums.com/news/ultra-hd-alliance-announce-new-4k-specs-and-logo.12203

[Alan P]

I tried a couple of converters I found through Google and they even supported CUDA. Unfortunately even after an hour each they hadn't even converted 1% of the movie so I gave up.

[Jason]

Did any of those converters include Handbrake? It's basically the standard, imo.

[Alan P]

I looked at Handbrake as well. Same issue.

Oh and I think it was the audio stream that made the TV baulk at the file. It had a DTS 7.1 lossless audio track.

[Kchrpm]

Another way to hide the TV: transparent screen on shelving.
http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/10/say-hello-to-panasonics-invisible-tv/

http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/midas/7ed7240cc1d526d97af2d6efef46f3ca/203238273/panasonic.jpg

[Yw-slayer]

I don't really understand how that works, but that's cool.

[Kchrpm]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/See-through_display


OLED
Transparent displays with OLEDs are the most commonly produced forms of see-through displays on the market or in development. OLED screens have two layers of glass on both sides of the OLED, which consist of an emissive and conductive layer. Electrical impulses travel through the conductive layer and produce light at the emissive layer. This is different from LCD's in that OLED's produce their own light, which allows the screens to be much thinner, while LCD's need to be backlit. The narrow gap between the pixels of the screen as well as the clear cathodes within allow the screens to be transparent. These types of screen have been notoriously difficult and expensive to produce in the past, but are now becoming more common as the method of manufacturing them is advancing.

[Yw-slayer]

Ah, I see. Thanks.

[Random]

That's pretty neat. :cool:

[21Kid]

So, this is our general next-gen TV thread now? ;)

That is really neat. Does it produce just as much light behind it then? I would think that could cause problems.

[LHutton]

Well you can now buy a 30in OLED 4K monitor, for a mere $4,999.:lol:

http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/06/dell-ultrasharp-30-latitude-12-7000-latitude-13-7000/

[21Kid]

FYI... (Edit: Sold out. :()

If you still haven’t upgraded to 4K, this is one of the best deals we’ve seen to date. $900 gets you a Samsung 55" 4K smart TV, which is nearly $200 less than Amazon’s current price, and Dell will toss in a $400 promo gift card to sweeten the pot.

That gift card is only valid for 90 days, but you can use it on anything Dell sells, including video game consoles, computers, speaker systems, and a lot more. [Samsung 55" 4K Smart TV + $400 Dell Gift Card, $900 (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=&cs=19&sku=A8484488&dgc=CJ)]

Note: Sometimes, Dell pulls these deals without warning, so make sure you see the gift card in your cart before checking out.

[Kchrpm]

We're getting so close to my goal of a $1000 70" 4KTV. Hopefully 2018 Super Bowl sales or something.

[21Kid]

I'm still holding out for OLED 4k, personally. But, the future is bright. :cool:

[Alan P]

have found out that my employer will be showing 4K sports, 4K movies and 4K entertainment channels when it launches later this year. :)

[21Kid]

Eeeexcelllent!!!

[Yw-slayer]

have found out that my employer will be showing 4K sports, 4K movies and 4K entertainment channels when it launches later this year. :)

If only you had time to watch any of it. Or do you not have the same problems that I do?

[Alan P]

If only you had time to watch any of it. Or do you not have the same problems that I do?

No. My kids are only here at the weekend. :)

[Yw-slayer]

Ok, so different problems!

[21Kid]

While HDR demos used to make TV shows and movies look slightly weird, the latest batch I've seen show that there's plenty of promise behind the technology. HDR is a far more striking visual change than 4K alone, and now we're finally seeing more media take advantage of it.

The new P-Series finally brings HDR and Dolby Vision support, as well as ultra-wide color spectrum, down to Vizio's more affordable sets. There's also full array backlighting, with 128 active LED zones...
I checked out one P-Series set in a pitch-black hotel room, and I was mostly impressed by its ability to reach inky-deep black levels. It was hard to tell the black imagery on screen from the opening of Man of Steel from the surrounding darkness. Honestly, it's enough to convince me to leave my plasma TV sometime soon.With that many full array zones and HDR, I'm not sure that I'll need to wait for OLED any more. They are catching up to OLED really fast.

[SportWagon]

Oh. Sorry. This thread isn't really about desktop monitors.

My boss appears to have my workstation set to be evergreeened with a single 4K monitor. Boo. I knew my colleague had recently upgraded from two 24inch monitors. Turned out he talked them into two times 4K (28"). I find it difficult to believe 1x4K (28") will beat 2x22" (1680x1050).

Unless perhaps I can manage to get all three to work together...

My eyesight is not good enough to just start using smaller windows with denser fonts. (Because, true, theoretically 3840x is better than 2x 1680x; but twice THAT must be even betterer). I really don't need media, just text. Lots of text.

Part of the problem seems to be that 28" size is inherently just marginal for use of the higher resolution.

And of course, there's "See if I can swing a second 4K...".

[Yw-slayer]

Dual monitors, as long as each of them is at least 1680x1050 (arguably now 1920x1080), are The Bomb. Three is a it too much, though.

If you're having problems with eyesight, like me, just make some adjustments via scaling in Windows, and (if you use Outlook) in Outlook.

[thesameguy]

I have indeed noticed that three is too much. I have been agonizing over going from 2x23 to 2x27, possibly UHD curved because a pair of curved monitors would look completely scifi.

[Kchrpm]

I have two monitors now, and sometimes wish for three: two for workspace, one for email. I presume that if I had 3, I would wish for 4.

Someone who has used a virtual desktop environment for video editing, where he put on a VR headset and then spun around to look at however many virtual monitors he wanted/his monster editing desktop could support, gushed over the experience on a podcast and said it's the only way he wants to work now. But video editing seems like a unique beast of a task.

[SportWagon]

Windows? I scale right now mostly using -xrm parameters to adjust X resources.

The retired VM/Virtualbox guy used four monitors. Two horizontal in the center, with two vertical on the outside.

Hmm. A big problem with too many monitors might be that it will increase the probability that the GTXF window remains visible even though you've been working diligently on something else.

Outlook? heirloom-mailx (aka s-nail)

[21Kid]

I have indeed noticed that three is too much. I have been agonizing over going from 2x23 to 2x27, possibly UHD curved because a pair of curved monitors would look completely scifi. What about standing 3 on end? :cool: I thought about doing that for a while... I work with mortgage documents that are frequently on legal (8.5x14) paper.


I have two monitors now, and sometimes wish for three: two for workspace, one for email. I presume that if I had 3, I would wish for 4. I've thought about using two regular monitors for work and leaving my laptop screen just for email. I use my laptop as one of my 2 screens right now.

[SportWagon]

I usually use my two monitors to view approximately 4 things simultanteously. Text windows are nearly always half-screen wide. Most work browsers are about that size, though non-work Firefox profiles seem to tend to be wider.

And I use three workspaces (each of which can view 4 "things").

[thesameguy]

What about standing 3 on end? :cool: I thought about doing that for a while... I work with mortgage documents that are frequently on legal (8.5x14) paper.

I've done that with two - we're all letter and legal here, so portrait can be helpful although it does tend to lead to the eye getting a little lost. Sometimes. I don't think three would be an improvement or a detriment.


I've thought about using two regular monitors for work and leaving my laptop screen just for email. I use my laptop as one of my 2 screens right now.

Done that here too, specifically in that application. For most people I have dealt with, the issue with three monitors is how much head movement you need to do from 1->3. It's a lot. I have a system with 2x24" monitors at the office I use for... monitoring... and even that's a little much. 2x22 or 2x23 seems about perfect in terms of maximizing desktop space and not introducing extraneous head movement.

I've wondered about the stacked configuration, but based on limited testing I think the up-down head movement is even more fatiguing than left-right movement.

Edit: I guess if you work on a single thing for a long time and then move on to something else big width or height is less of a liability, but I tend to think the advantage of multiple monitors is being to work on many things more or less all at once. If you work on something for a while then move on, I don't see the issue with just closing the first before moving to the second anyway.

[Alan P]

Getting back to 4k TV stuff, Sky just announced that they'll be showing the F1 in 4k from next season. So pleased I bought a 4k TV and now have a 4k capable box!

[balki]

Is this the same F1 that just went to HD in 2011? Roughly 10 years behind every other major sport?
What's the world feed at now, 720p?

[Yw-slayer]

Done that here too, specifically in that application. For most people I have dealt with, the issue with three monitors is how much head movement you need to do from 1->3. It's a lot.

I agree. I used to keep email on the 15" notebook screen on the right, a document on a 24" portrait in the middle, and my 27" 1920x1200 on the left. Apart from having to move my head, I found that I got tired from switching between different real-life font and icon sizes. The cursor would also get lost.

Perhaps 3 monitors of the same size and resolution, possibly in portrait, would work better. However, I'm not going to go that far, and I don't think I'm ready to go without at least ONE landscape monitor.

[21Kid]

So, 4k is on it's way to becoming the standard. And HDR seems like it will allow LCDs to compete with OLEDs.

All About HDR, and Why It's the Future of Television (http://lifehacker.com/what-hdr-is-and-why-it-s-the-future-of-television-1785641937)

So, no, you don’t need to run out and upgrade your TV right now. Your current HDTV is probably just fine, especially if you bought it in the last few years. If you’re on the market for a TV upgrade, however, HDR should absolutely be on your checklist—more so if you’re a movie buff. Even if you’re upgrading from 1080p to a 4K display, it’s probably not worth it unless you also get a TV that at least supports the HDR10 standard. HDR is the future, so if you’re going to buy now, you might as well get something that sets you up for it.On top of HDR10, it sounds like you might want to get one that supports Dolby vision too... If you are looking for the best picture.
Unlike HDR10, Dolby Vision is a proprietary HDR standard that does more, at a price. Dolby Vision supports a wider range of color luminance (up to 10,000 nits, HDR10 maxes out at 1,000), and Dolby Vision content is mastered with 12-bit color depth (HDR10 is only 10-bit). That means Dolby Vision has a possible 68 billion colors it can use, where HDR10 has a little over one billion. Current non-HDR TVs top out at about 16 million colors.

The biggest difference, however, is that every frame of Dolby Vision content has metadata that tells your HDR TV how to display that specific frame. HDR10's metadata doesn’t change from one frame to the next, and has the same instructions set for all frames, so you don’t get the same level of visual clarity you would with Dolby Vision, especially if a movie does a lot of bouncing back and forth between light and dark environments. That said, Dolby Vision requires its HDR content to be played through a compatible player and output to a compatible display. Because manufacturers have to pay for a special Dolby Vision chip, certification process, and proprietary licensing fees, they have to extend those extra costs to you as the consumer.

[thesameguy]

I have noticed that 4k sets are getting cheap, to the point it wouldn't make sense to buy 2k. But, few of these cheap 4k sets support HDR which at this point seems like a much have.

OLED is holding pretty steady in terms of price - cheaper now than it's been in the past, but not like 4k LCD. I'm still on the fence as to whether it's worth holding out for OLED as a TV technology, but OLED does have increasing traction in small devices so I can't help but think we're seeing Plasma v LCD all over again... Plasma being the established flat screen technology and LCD challenging it, propelled by adoption and technology advancement in smaller devices that plasma just couldn't compete with. Now, LCD is entrenched, but OLED is getting attention in small devices. I could see leaps in OLED technology pushing it to the top in a few years.

[Kchrpm]

I have noticed that 4k sets are getting cheap, to the point it wouldn't make sense to buy 2k.
Are there 2K sets? I don't remember seeing one.

[thesameguy]

We basically skipped that generation, which is how cheap 4k is right now!

I nearly bought a 50" 4k just because it was $300! :lol:

[Kchrpm]

I told Jason before that I would buy a 4K TV when I could get an upgrade in size (from 60") for under $1000 from a major brand (no Westinghouse or Insignia).

Last week Best Buy had a 65" Visio 4K TV for $999.

I'm going to have to move my goal posts just to keep my money a little longer! 4K, HDR, 70+", $800, glasses-free 3D. That should keep me on the sideline for a while!

[thesameguy]

That 70" is a killer - but a big HDR 4k at $800 is going to be doable very, very soon. 70" will probably be $1500 throughout next year. A 60" might hit $800 by the end of the year.

[Kchrpm]

Yeah, I *need* it to be a killer, I have other purchases planned out for this year.

[thesameguy]

Whoa, just realized the LG 65UH5500 is a $1k 65" HDR. $800 70" HDR might not be that far off.. Maybe we'll reach a point where it's just $500 TV, you choose the size. :lol:

[21Kid]

I'm still using my 2010 55" 1080p LED/LCD. which cost $2k at the time.

A $800 65" 4k HDR seems like it would finally be worth it.

Are Sony and Vizio the only ones using full array panels? I thought they would be more common by now. :erm:(Oh, it seems they are using the term direct-lit now)
Though there are still some edge lit models. Personally, I'd rather have a thicker TV with a better lighting method. 1.3 vs. 2.5 inches? 2.5 is still really thin.

I would still prefer an OLED. But, I don't know if they can make them cheap enough.

My new phone isn't an OLED screen like the last one was and I can definitely tell a difference. I miss having a black background, instead of the very dark grey that it is now. :|

[Tom Servo]

Whoa, just realized the LG 65UH5500 is a $1k 65" HDR. $800 70" HDR might not be that far off.. Maybe we'll reach a point where it's just $500 TV, you choose the size. :lol:

Damn, I paid that just under five years ago for a 60 inch 1080p LG plasma. I had no idea prices were plummeting like that.

[thesameguy]

Yeah, 4k got cheap fast. I'm surprised at how fast HDR has been adopted though. For a hot minute it seemed like HDR was not going to catch on - I think slow sales of 4k TVs are causing manufacturers to pack more value into the dollar to make it seem worthwhile.

I'd still hold out on OLED at the moment. A couple years ago affordable OLED seemed far-fetched, but 55" 4k OLEDs are under two grand now and it seems prudent to hang on a sec and see how cheap they get. I'd prefer to keep TV spends under a grand, but I might be willing to stretch to two for an OLED 65". Might.

[Jason]

http://www.buydig.com/shop/product/LG55EF9500/LG-55EF9500-55-Inch-2160p-4K-UHD-Smart-3D-Flat-OLED-TV-w-webOS-20?sdtid=8407761&omid=200&ref=cj&utm_source=CJ&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_content=1225267

$2550 for a 4k OLED and you get a free 42" LCD TV to boot. This time next year 4k OLEDs will be downright affordable. Crazy!


I was just talking to Keith about that and the 65" version the other day. I can't wait until OLED is affordable. I want a bigger tv, but I haven't been impressed by anything (I currently own a plasma) other than OLED.


I'm the same way. After looking at TVs at a Best Buy, I need my Panasonic TC-P50G25 plasma (bought in late 2009) to hold out until 60"+ OLEDs drop further in price.


I went from 24" CRT (5 years) to 42" 720p plasma (8? years) and I'm guessing my next thing is 60-65" OLED (I don't care if it's 1080p or 4k, because it won't matter at my couch distance).

There's a 55" OLED that is pretty reasonable $1700-2000, but it's curved, and I'm not feeling a curved TV.

Well, about a year later, I pull the trigger on a 65" OLED, god help me. To be delivered on Friday, hope it's everything I hope it to be :lol:

http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-OLED65B6P-oled-4k-tv

[TheBenior]

You madman! You've ceded at least one of your vacations for next year!

[Jason]

Yeah, I'm not doing a winter trip this year, and probably not a spring trip :lol:

[thesameguy]

You can take a virtual trip on your 4k OLED TV!

[Jason]

Actually, that reminds me... any good movies or documentaries with spectacular visual/audio recommendations are welcome, since I'll be slowly building a blu ray collection :up:

[Yw-slayer]

Planet Earth?

[thesameguy]

Yeah - that would be my suggestion. I was told one of the very recent episodes was so incredible it's a 4k-seller.

[21Kid]

Nice! :D Time for a PS4pro. :p

[novicius]

Or Xbox One S! :D :up:

Staggeringly impressive, Jason -- I'm looking at upgrading my 27" gaming monitor to 4K later in 2017 when the Über Xbox (Project Scorpio) finally launches.

But that'll only be like $400 USD. :lol:

[Jason]

Planet Earth is definitely happening :up:

PS4 Pro would have happened "now" if it had 4k Blu Ray. But since it doesn't, I have no reason to buy one until Final Fantasy 7 Remake. I'll likely be waiting unto the Scorpio comes out for 4k BD. :(

[Alan P]

I honestly don't comprehend Sony's decision to NOT include a UHD/4k capable drive in the Pro. For anyone sitting on the fence that is considering going UHD it could be a major deal breaker to have a UHD capable player as well as a console to use otherwise. MS suffered from the PS3 having a Blu-Ray drive to a certain extent, although how much is unclear. Not to mention the higher storage capacity of UHD discs allowing more, higher res textures on the One S. Sony has missed a trick IMO.

[Dicknose]

Adding a 4K disc would have given it a big sales advantage even if the PlayStation side didn't use it.
Buy a 4K PS and get a 4K disc player all in one!

[Yw-slayer]

And that's exactly why the PS3 was...

SAY IT

FUCKING SAY IT

[thesameguy]

Black?

[21Kid]

Awesome value!?!

[Yw-slayer]

Awesome value!?!

YES

[Jason]

I think I'm in love with my tv.