Looking at a new TV

[Sysman]

You're right, I have mine in the snooker room.

Cluedo could do with updating:

Colonel Mustard
In the Snooker room
With the flat panel telly

[Sysman]

good point spod, can I request everyone stops quoting SAS please.


But I suspect in 2->4 years 84" will be in the £2-5K region.

its $20,000 maybe its 'US-Dorrar"?

I remember the early large flat screen tellies costing 20,000 to 40,000 Swiss Francs and now they are down to less than 1K

[Sysman]

indeed I hope you watch from your DFS sofa (on 4 years interest free credit that you will never pay before the sofa falls apart) whilst eating some of Icelands best meat n cheese products...

FTFY

[IR35FanClub]

Actually, without checking one of the on-line calculators, I think 55" is about optimum if watching HD from about 8 feet. You will not be able to see the pixels. Those who sit further away need a bigger set.

Not sure I see the point of 4K. It won't look any sharper at HD viewing distances, and I can't see that you want a wider field of view than HD gives. I mean, 4K would, I guess, allow you to watch a 55" from 4 feet, without seeing pixels, but wouldn't each side of the screen then be disappearing beyond your peripheral vision?

I think these numbers are thrown around willy nilly without anyone actually checking them. I'm sure if you sit in a test room with a mpeg screen test running on the best kit, you night spot pixels. I've got a PJ runinng Full HD to a 120" screen, which I sit about 10" from and I can't see pixels. But it does look astounding. Even on Minecraft XBox edition there's no jaggies. Its a JVC D-ILA - best there is I reckon). Has the good bits of LCD and DLP with none of the draw backs (like gate mesh or rainbows).

I set up my old 40" Sony on the wall, and have the screen pull down for movies and gaming. Went for a 3.0 sound system. But with large floor standers. I feel the bass is already more than loud enough so no need for a sub, and I don't like rears after having them before. I was never really conviced there was a helicopter coming from the back of my living room.

I will probable upgrade to a 4k PJ once they are available second hand. My current one is the HD350 - £3,500 when new, but got it used for £900 with the screen from a mate upgrading the the 3D version - I'm not interested in 3d as I find it gimmicky.

We all say we don't have 4k sources yet... but the reason I would want one - stills photos from a DSLR! Even at HD (2k) resolution they look awesome on a big screen. I'm sure the upgrade to 4k would be a noticeable improvement. But be warned - BBC were trailling recording 8k last year at the Olympics using NHK's Ultra HD cameras.

[doodab]

The whole 4k thing is a bit marketing led IMO. The number itself fails to take into account the rest of the capture system, lenses, sensor interpolation and other factors which can reduce the actual image resolution considerably. Not many people realise that a lot of 'HD' footage is captured at 1440 pixels horizontal res, not 1920 as you might imagine, and even that exceeds the resolution of the lens.

There is a paper knocking around from a guy from one of the high end digital cinema camera manufacturers pointing out that 4k horizontal pixels is far higher resolution than your eyes have even when spread over an imax screen at typical viewing distance, and also most 4k output has nothing like true 4k resolution because it's interpolated from a low pass filtered bayer pattern capture.

(here it is : http://magazine.creativecow.net/arti...ture-of-pixels)

[gingerjedi]

I remember the early large flat screen tellies costing 20,000 to 40,000 Swiss Francs and now they are down to less than 1K

My 37" 720P LCD cost £1400 6 years ago, Looking around a comparable model today cost about £400.

I would love an excuse to buy another but the dam thing just keeps on going.

[Pogle]

I bought a 3D Samsung smart TV for Mr P a couple of years ago, and I would recommend it. Although We've only used the 3D glasses once - to watch the Olympics opening ceremony.
So unless you're mad keen on having 3D I really wouldn't bother with it.

[Scrag Meister]

Update.

Price at John Lewis was 1799, I managed to get a price match from them down to 1628.

Above a lot of peoples budgets I understand but still saving £170.

[d000hg]

Actually, without checking one of the on-line calculators, I think 55" is about optimum if watching HD from about 8 feet. You will not be able to see the pixels. Those who sit further away need a bigger set.

Not sure I see the point of 4K. It won't look any sharper at HD viewing distances, and I can't see that you want a wider field of view than HD gives. I mean, 4K would, I guess, allow you to watch a 55" from 4 feet, without seeing pixels, but wouldn't each side of the screen then be disappearing beyond your peripheral vision?

I don't think so. From a test I just did, even 2ft away a 55" screen would not quite take up your full vision.

Of course, I don't think having it take up your full vision is the best thing. If I choose a seat that does that at the cinema it's hard to track what's going on.

[d000hg]

Update.

Price at John Lewis was 1799, I managed to get a price match from them down to 1628.

Above a lot of peoples budgets I understand but still saving £170.

Good price, invisible hand reckoned 1749 was the best going. Assuming you went for the 55ES8000 after all?