HDTVs

joeboo_sl said:

Toshiba 55" LED $349

Good price for a 55"

Some reviews of people that bought it here:

Toshiba 55L310U 55 LED-LCD at Best Buy - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews

Its manufactured specifically for Best Buy and this sale, so it's probably pretty cheaply made, I wouldn't count on it lasting you 10 years or anything but its big and cheap and you'd probably get a good 4-5 years out of it before something craps out. And honestly, at sub $500 price points on TVs that large, you're talking about disposable electronics anyways

Click to expand...

Thanks I'll take a look. Had bad Toshiba experience in the past though. We are just looking for something for the office for movies/video games if the other TV is taken. Of course the techy in Mr wants to buy a 60 inch uhd curved Samsung, but the budget conscious father in me wants to be cheap.

You just got a new, higher paying job. Celebrate with the TV you really want!

Foggy_sl said:

The TVs that are 4k capable still have better picture quality at lower resolutions than their 1080 brethren though right? So even if you can't take advantage of the 4k in a consistent and meaningful way, you still have a nicer picture at 1080. Whether that is worth the extra 500 to 1000 is up for debate and up to each individual to decide.

Click to expand...

How would it have a better picture at lower resolutions? It's just doubling pixels to display 1080 at 2160. It's not revealing hidden source detail.

Imo, the only decision right now is between 1080 OLED or the cheapest "LED" in the size you want of a brand you personally trust. Neither curved or 4k.

Porkchop_sl said:

That's not what i've read. It looks like the upscaling processors in some 4K models dont do a great job with low resolution elements like OTA and DVDs.

Click to expand...

Yes. That is also what I've read. If you buy a cheap ass 4K TV, it likely is going to look about the same (possibly slightly worse), than a native 1080p.

Leadsalad_sl said:

How would it have a better picture at lower resolutions? It's just doubling pixels to display 1080 at 2160. It's not revealing hidden source detail.

Click to expand...

Upscalers. Higher quality 4K TV's can display 1080p slightly better than 1080p native TV's.

TLDR: You will pay a premium to get 4K right now. There is very little 4K content. If money is no object, sure, get 4K.

I'm planning on getting the 4K Samsung I posted a page or so back. I can report my personal review (in my home) and I'll try to be as objective as possible. As much as I'd love to disagree with joeboo and others the are more right than they are wrong.

But those saying that 4K TV's don't upscale well are referring more to the door buster 4K TV's on BF than they are the mid-to-upper class 4K's.

Dude, that's complete fucking nonsense. It's literally just doubling the pixels in both directions.

Right, but any time you have a video source that is providing an image that is not exactly the same as the native resolution of your display device, there is some processing involved to convert the image to the correct size. There's a computer processor in the middle of the whole path from input port to screen display that handles that transition, and with the cheaper 4k TVs, that processor generally sucks at its job.

Leadsalad_sl said:

Dude, that's complete fucking nonsense. It's literally just doubling the pixels in both directions.

Click to expand...

It's not complete nonsense. You're looking at it in a vacuum - do a little research here. The quality of the upscaling/image processor will control the quality of the picture.

• The image processor is the most important part of these 4K TVs for upscaling HD to Ultra HD.
• Just because a TV is 4K doesn't mean it has a good scaler built-in. On cheaper 4K TVs, for instance, you probably save money because of a sub-par scaler. So in these cases, 1080p content probably won't look any better (and possibly worse). Sadly, as far as scaling performance is concerned, you usually get what you pay for.
• Not All Upscaling Is Created Equal
  According to Consumer Reports senior editor Jim Willcox, upscaling performance can vary greatly from set to set. Willcox, who has helped conduct tests for Ultra HD TVs in the Consumer Reports Labs, says it's better to stick with top brands.
  
  "It's just going to upscale automatically-you don't have a choice," Willcox says. "There are some cheaper secondary brands that have 4K sets in the marketplace, and what we've seen is that they just don't do as good a job. Even though they do have higher-resolution screens, they're not good at upconverting.

My fucking point is that there is 0 (zero) worthwhile 4k content right now. You're wasting money on shit you won't even be using for years.

1) No. That wasn't your fucking point. You were talking about upscaling and your general lack of knowledge on the subject. Not the lack of content.
2) The current lack of content has been established.
3) It's going to much less than "years". A few players are already out or are trickling out in the next couple months along with a few movies. It won't be "years" until many are released (as well as the digital formats for download). I'd provide links but you seem irate and I'd be wasting my time.

You're all missing the point. If you care--or want to seem like you care--about picture quality, you're going to get an OLED. And with the tech still relatively young, you're going to get a 1080 knowing something better will be out by the time 4k content is mainstream and worthwhile because the tech for picture quality is hopefully going to be better by then too so you'll probably want to upgrade again on picture quality grounds.

Though, if you need a salesperson to talk your wife into letting you buy a TV you're probably wanting to hear about 4k and how you can access Netflix on the TV and watch 3D movies and how curved TVs are so damned curved!!! Isn't it exciting stuff? I mean, compared to 1,080, 4,000 has like 4 times as much better! ... and that's easier to justified a big TV purchase for a lot of people over "the picture quality is much better" and listen to the rubes in your life say TV in your living room looks just fine.

Remember when 3D was the big selling point? I'm SO glad 3D is mainstream and shows are being broadcast in 3D like the sales people promised, right? 3D is kinda cool, but most people only every pay for the access to something they still don't have much opportunity to use.

So, yeah, when 4k content is mainstream it'll be awesome, right? Mainstream. Not just available if you really want it, but mainstream. Until 4k is mainstream, it's not worth it. And even then, it still may not be.

But no, 1080p upscale to 4k isn't going to be that ah-hah moment that justifies to your wife it was a worthwhile purchase. The only reason it's going to look better is because you got suckered into buying a 4k TV to watch sources that are still often not even 1080 yet, so you've probably also left a bunch of filters and settings turned on that you don't realize actually degrade your picture quality, but look different, so that must be all the money you spent at work making your picture look great! Amazing how often people try to convince me their TVs look amazing because the brightness is melting my retinas or that the soap opera effect is just their amazing TV's top-dollar picture quality at work.

Most people aren't purists, though. If you were, you'd be buying OLED, and still probably not 4K. So, either look into an OLED, or just buy the biggest LED you can afford from a brand you personally trust that isn't curved, nor 4k, nor bloated with 'smart' features you aren't going to use, including 3D unless you're actually going to use it, and you're not, trust me.

4k TVs are dumb. 4k monitors and gaming will be awesome in a few years when it's more feasible for more people, though.

jeydax_sl said:

3) It's going to much less than "years". A few players are already out or are trickling out in the next couple months along with a few movies. It won't be "years" until many are released (as well as the digital formats for download). I'd provide links but you seem irate and I'd be wasting my time.

Click to expand...

So-called "full" 1080p isn't even fully implemented and mainstream yet. Most cable companies still make you specify and pay more for HD service. Some networks are still using 720 and seem happy with it. Streaming; shitty, shitty streaming.

I guess if you're the type of person that thinks it's worth buying anything because it enables you to enjoy a fraction of the content offered, under very specific circumstances, then I respect that. But it's hard to make a generalized argument that 4k is worth it because of that fact.

See also: 3D. It was all the rage. It was a huge marketing gimmick. Big promises were made. A ton of people bought 3D TVs... and for what? Yeah, sure, some people somewhere take the time to set up and take advantage of that content.

Until a feature doesn't require setting up and seeking out, imo it's usually not worth the bother. And it's going to be many years before 4k transitions from marketing ploy to actual necessary or even desirable feature for TVs.

Meanwhile, we're still watching shitty, blurry movies, even in HD, because movies shot at higher frames per second look weird and bad to most viewers!

popsicledeath_sl said:

So-called "full" 1080p isn't even fully implemented and mainstream yet.

Click to expand...

I'd say you're full of shit in the claim that 1080 isn't main stream. The rest of the post, sure, I agree with - and is more or less what I said in my TLDR in a few posts back.

Edit: If you really want to be super nitpicky about it, there isn't a single channel that actually broad casts in 1080"p", the only time you'll get "true" 1080p content is from Blu-Rays but we're obviously discussing the point of picture quality. Also, quick glance shows that (roughly) 75%+ of channels broadcast in 1080. But hey, it isn't main stream, but whatever.

jeydax_sl said:

I'd say you're full of shit in the claim that 1080 isn't main stream. The rest of the post, sure, I agree with - and is more or less what I said in my TLDR in a few posts back.

Edit: If you really want to be super nitpicky about it, there isn't a single channel that actually broad casts in 1080"p", the only time you'll get "true" 1080p content is from Blu-Rays but we're obviously discussing the point of picture quality. Also, quick glance shows that (roughly) 75%+ of channels broadcast in 1080. But hey, it isn't main stream, but whatever.

Click to expand...

And it took how long before those 75% of channels broadcast in 1080? Not even bothering to nitpick the "p" and that you're not actually getting "full" HD which of course is a marketing gimmick that's been around for years to up-sell consumers long before even half-assed 1080 was readily available. And most cable/satellite TV STILL offer 'standard' definition channels and seem to think 1080 is a rare luxury one should pay extra for. And streaming HD is really shitty and rarely actually 1080 quality. Not to mention all the not-all-that-old older shows that are still just shitty upscales and weren't actually shot in 1080. And you're paying more for BluRays because those are also special and regular DVDs are still the standard and those are, what, 720x480 still. And even movies shot in 1080 are still only showing 24 fps because oh that just looks soooo bad and doesn't have that classic 'film' look to it, so it's HD and still arguably shitty quality. etc.

So, I'd argue 1080 even without the "p" that we won't bother nitpicking is still not mainstream. It's available. But it's certainly not the standard nor mainstream. Broadcasters, streamers and electronics makers are all still trying to tell people it's a rare luxury you should have to pay extra for. When you turn on your TV and through no efforts or intentions of your own start getting actual HD, then maybe we've moved on to the point 4k content is actually going to be supported, becoming mainstream, and then someday become standard.

Until then, though, there is going to be limited content and the content that is available you'll pay a premium for, and I've yet to see very compelling arguments that that premium is even worth paying for unless you're a gamer or like sitting really damn close to your tv, like obscenely close.

Anyhow, back to watching football that's being broadcast at 720p!

popsicledeath_sl said:

When you turn on your TV and through no efforts or intentions of your own start getting actual HD...

Click to expand...

Minus the effort/intentions, this is why I love Plex. Actual HD content... actual HD content everywhere.

You bring up a good point about the whole 24 FPS thing, that pisses me off the more I think about it.

jeydax_sl said:

Minus the effort/intentions, this is why I love Plex. Actual HD content... actual HD content everywhere.

You bring up a good point about the whole 24 FPS thing, that pisses me off the more I think about it.

Click to expand...

Have you actually watched film content in >24 fps? It looks weird as shit. Often described as the "Soap Opera Effect". It is jarring and looks .. odd.

Documentaries / Sports on the other hand, looks great with high frame rates.

But it's not that film is "worse" at >24 FPS, it's just that we're not used to seeing it, so it seems odd to us. I wish more films would start pushing the boundaries with higher FPS(like The Hobbit), it's the direction that the movie industry needs to head.

Jysin_sl said:

Have you actually watched film content in >24 fps? It looks weird as shit. Often described as the "Soap Opera Effect". It is jarring and looks .. odd.

Documentaries / Sports on the other hand, looks great with high frame rates.

Click to expand...

Yes. I thought the films I know I've seen (Hobbit series) with >24 looked better than the other shit I've seen. I really don't get why anyone would be OPPOSED to a better frame rate, that makes zero fucking sense to me.

Edit: I'm going to have to re-watch the Hobbit.

any thoughts on the Sony x900c 65".....?