DaSess
Member
Registered: 23rd Jun 13
User status: Offline
|
Hello there, been looking at getting a new tv for a while now as want a bigger one for the living room as its massive. So at the moment I have 46" Samsung which is decent cant complain at all but like I say I just want bigger. So I have always said I wouldn't get anything below 60" but my dilemma has started already, I've seen a Panasonic I like looks pretty much what I'm after: smart tv, LED, built in wifi & it's affordable for me now but the problem is it 55" which has me thinking as from the start when I said I wanted a new tv I wouldn't get anything below 60", so do I just say fuck it and get this Panasonic I have seen now or do I wait until can afford something bigger??????
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
Go for a good 55" over a cheap 60". Although if you can afford a good 60" just go for that.
|
Balling
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Apr 04
Location: Denmark
User status: Offline
|
Buy a plasma, can afford something bigger now then.
Get a 55" and you'll want a bigger one within two years.
|
Balling
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Apr 04
Location: Denmark
User status: Offline
|
Also you'll enjoy the size of the TV a hell of a lot more than the model number, so definitely go size over quality.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
In 2 years time 4K will be at a realistic price and he'll need one of them anyway.
|
A2H GO
Member
Registered: 14th Sep 04
Location: Stoke
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
In 2 years time 4K will be at a realistic price and he'll need one of them anyway.
I'm hoping mine will last until I can just go stright to 4K skipping all this pointless 3D/LED/Smart TV malarky.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
Can get a 55" 4K Samsung for £5k, that's actually a pretty good price but I'll wait until they're around £2K (or less would be good). They'll need to bring out some 4K content right enough or it's a bit of a waste.
They'll still be LED and Smart, probably with 3D anyway but the days of 3D in it's current form are numbered.
|
Balling
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Apr 04
Location: Denmark
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
In 2 years time 4K will be at a realistic price and he'll need one of them anyway.
Depends what you find realistic I suppose...
Don't see 60" 4K TV's hittting £1000 within 2 years. Not nearly.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
~£2k for a higher end 55" is realistic, the 60" will be more expensive for now anyway.
Buy the best you can afford at the biggest size, but don't go massive if it means sacrificing quality. I'll stick by that.
|
Dom
Member
Registered: 13th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
Tbh, a lot of people tend not to have the large sized rooms to pull off 55/60"+ TV's (rough viewing distance of a 60" screen is around 7-8ft) and they just end up with a horrendous monstrosity on wall/sitting in the corner.
As said though, go for (picture) quality of screen size; nothing worse than having a large TV which is ruined by a shite picture quality.
|
A2H GO
Member
Registered: 14th Sep 04
Location: Stoke
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
Can get a 55" 4K Samsung for £5k, that's actually a pretty good price but I'll wait until they're around £2K (or less would be good). They'll need to bring out some 4K content right enough or it's a bit of a waste.
They'll still be LED and Smart, probably with 3D anyway but the days of 3D in it's current form are numbered.
They'll be cheap enough soon. Granted it's not an uber brand but already this 50" 4K TV can be had on Amazon for less than £650.
http://gizmodo.com/wow-a-4k-tv-for-1080-is-simply-bonkers-513578198
Happy to have LED/Smart features as a side effect of it being a new TV wouldn't be going out and buying one specifically for that.
Sony are to start offering 4K downloads/streaming this month too, content will be coming soon when they've stopped peddling 3D.
[Edited on 18-07-2013 by A2H GO]
|
DaSess
Member
Registered: 23rd Jun 13
User status: Offline
|
Well after much deliberation by that I mean the mrs telling me we should wait, we (she) has decided we are waiting to get new tele. She has a point as from start I said I wanted a 60" and want the quality to match the size.
|
noshua
Member
Registered: 19th Nov 08
User status: Offline
|
never ending circle
|
Balling
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Apr 04
Location: Denmark
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by noshua
never ending circle
Indeed...
Ironically people are incredibly hung up on getting top of the line TV's without the faintest knowledge of what they're paying for.
The average consumer will appreciate a sharp vivid image far more than the correctly calibrated equivalent.
It's in our nature that we enjoy colours and contrast on a level that is unnatural or unreal.
It doesn't take a lot of hardware to achieve this type of image. In fact, most midrange TV's will excel at providing a "breathtaking" image in the eyes of the average consumer (read 90% of all people).
People read reviews by professionals who are measuring screens with advanced equipment and awarding stars according to their measurements.
We get the sense from the internet that it takes a lot of money to purchase an impressive or even remotely good TV, which couldn't be further from the truth.
The mere fact that LED TV's have reached the level of popularity they have is evidence enough that people do indeed not care at all about image quality. In fact, they don't have a fucking clue what image quality is.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
I agree with that most of the time Balling, buy what looks good for most people.
However, at that size, a 60" TV that costs <£1000 will be significantly worse than a 55" that costs a couple of hundred more, so in that case, when the sizes are already big, it's best to go for as good quality as you can manage.
|
Balling
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Apr 04
Location: Denmark
User status: Offline
|
<£1000 is a pretty wide spread though... Are we talking £999 or £500?
If the latter, then I agree, if the former then I don't.
Either way, if it boils down to size vs quality, then I'll maintain that a huge screen makes a bigger impact on a movie experience than good image quality.
Hence why cinemas are still (somewhat) popular.
In the real world it's not as black and white, but I can't think of a single price range where a 55" would be more preferable than a 60" at the same price.
If a 60" screen at let's say £800 doesn't sufficiently meet your image quality needs, then a £800 55" isn't going to either.
Like I said before though, most peoples "image quality needs" are a figment of their imagination.
Edit>
Sorry, just re-read your post and saw you said <1000£ 60" vs a 55" TV at a couple of hundred more, which makes no sense to me. Why compare a more expensive, smaller TV to a cheaper larger one? Surely if you can stretch a bit more, still go for the size you want?
[Edited on 20-07-2013 by Balling]
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
I do have needs, if I can see things I know aren't right it puts me off. Outside of need though, what's wrong with wants?
|
Balling
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Apr 04
Location: Denmark
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
I do have needs, if I can see things I know aren't right it puts me off. Outside of need though, what's wrong with wants?
Nothing wrong with wants at all, just seems to me it makes sense to know why it is you want it.
As for your needs I can't comment except to say that in this case I don't think you fully represent the average consumer.
|
Cavey
Member
Registered: 11th Nov 02
Location: Derby
User status: Offline
|
I don't think John ever represents the average consumer on electronics tbf
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
Probably not, which is why I got fed up trying to recommend the best for people when they are quite happy to buy whatever has the colour and contrast turned up as high as possible.
I still always suggest buying the best you can, which isn't always the biggest.
|
Cavey
Member
Registered: 11th Nov 02
Location: Derby
User status: Offline
|
I agree with you. While im not sure this supports either arguement, I changed the settings on mine to the recommended on Avforums, every time the missus' brother comes round he comments on how nice the picture looks compared to his, and his was considerably more expensive. I've told him to sort the settings, but not sure he never does.
|
Balling
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Apr 04
Location: Denmark
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
Probably not, which is why I got fed up trying to recommend the best for people when they are quite happy to buy whatever has the colour and contrast turned up as high as possible.
That's exactly it. No reason to recommend the best, people have no use or care for it (except to tell everyone it's the best).
|
Balling
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Apr 04
Location: Denmark
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cavey
I agree with you. While im not sure this supports either arguement, I changed the settings on mine to the recommended on Avforums, every time the missus' brother comes round he comments on how nice the picture looks compared to his, and his was considerably more expensive. I've told him to sort the settings, but not sure he never does.
My experience is usually the opposite.
When I explain colour space to people at work, I always load the same photo on my laptop and on my external screen and ask them to point to the one that looks the best. I've never had anyone point to my external screen, despite it being and ISO certified professionally calibrated screen providing a much, much better image than my laptop.
It's simply a matter of perception.
Despite having worked with colour control for several years, I still personally prefer my TV settings slightly on the contrasty and saturated side of the recommended optimal, simply because I enjoy a vivid image.
|
Dave
Member
Registered: 26th Feb 01
Location: Lancs
User status: Offline
|
I prefer how a tv handles motion rather than perception of how it reproduces colours.
My parents have a Sharp LCD that is dreadful, not sure the correct technical term (motion blur?) there is always a weird effect behind people and objects when they are moving quickly. As someone who watches lots of sport that would drive me mad.
|
A2H GO
Member
Registered: 14th Sep 04
Location: Stoke
User status: Offline
|
I tried my tv on the 'optimal' settings from avForums a number of times. Each time I've turned it back to the over saturated, high contrast default.
|
