What TV? Circa £600
Discussion
Sensible stuff; I picked up a PS4 when they were first launched. I very rarely use it. Anyway, back O/T.
The revised price point - realistically, it's more of the same. I'd still pick the LG 47LB730V - it sits in the middle of the Slinkster's budget. There's another thread that's starting to go on about visual acuity and 4K benefit again, and I don't want to wade into that one as I'll lose, but to explain the reason for not recommending a 4K display. (prepare for drivel):
4K/UHD/SUHD - whatever you want to call it, the content standard has yet to be agreed. At this moment in time, displays being released as 2015 models with UHD support are a shot in the dark. Quantum dot tech, Dolby Vision etc are all steps in the right direction and help achieve 10-bit colour and up to 98% of DCI, which will form the backbone of the content, but it's still not certain. Personally I'd say Dolby Vision was the sensible choice as it will map the display to the content. So content mastered in DCI P3 will be shown as such, and good old fashioned 1080p from a Rec.709 will be shown accordingly. Still, everyone is so hung up on resolution that these elements don't get mentioned (and those lovely sales people aren't going to tell you what you don't want to hear).
At present, there's lots of bun fights going on about resolution and the benefit of 4K (find any 4K TV thread). The truth is that pixel count is only half the story. Only in 2015 have we seen displays that can achieve a wider colour space that 709, and that's where the new format is of greater benefit. Unfortunately most 4K TV's sold up until this year, can achieve 709 but not DCI P3 - and that's not a firmware update, it's a panel upgrade deal. This year has been the turning point, which is fantastic - but it's still not a certainty about the content standard. Some people wont mind or don't care about this element of it, but it gets my goat that TV's are still sold to the consumer and it's not explained to them what it can and cant show in terms of source material.
So...the 2015 displays can achieve essentially what we believe the UHD standard to be, but it's a calculated risk to purchase (IMO) until the standard is made official. If you were to ask the guys at THX, they aren't quite sure either - they're waiting to hear from content creators as to how they're going about producing content, nevermind what spec is required to present it in the home. It's like building a Pro Mod to a new chassis spec that's yet to be officially published, and then finding out you've built an outlaw car...that's today's analogy, innit.
1080p still has a place in the market whilst the engineers and accountants quibble over things at the UHD table. My 2p worth anyways.
The revised price point - realistically, it's more of the same. I'd still pick the LG 47LB730V - it sits in the middle of the Slinkster's budget. There's another thread that's starting to go on about visual acuity and 4K benefit again, and I don't want to wade into that one as I'll lose, but to explain the reason for not recommending a 4K display. (prepare for drivel):
4K/UHD/SUHD - whatever you want to call it, the content standard has yet to be agreed. At this moment in time, displays being released as 2015 models with UHD support are a shot in the dark. Quantum dot tech, Dolby Vision etc are all steps in the right direction and help achieve 10-bit colour and up to 98% of DCI, which will form the backbone of the content, but it's still not certain. Personally I'd say Dolby Vision was the sensible choice as it will map the display to the content. So content mastered in DCI P3 will be shown as such, and good old fashioned 1080p from a Rec.709 will be shown accordingly. Still, everyone is so hung up on resolution that these elements don't get mentioned (and those lovely sales people aren't going to tell you what you don't want to hear).
At present, there's lots of bun fights going on about resolution and the benefit of 4K (find any 4K TV thread). The truth is that pixel count is only half the story. Only in 2015 have we seen displays that can achieve a wider colour space that 709, and that's where the new format is of greater benefit. Unfortunately most 4K TV's sold up until this year, can achieve 709 but not DCI P3 - and that's not a firmware update, it's a panel upgrade deal. This year has been the turning point, which is fantastic - but it's still not a certainty about the content standard. Some people wont mind or don't care about this element of it, but it gets my goat that TV's are still sold to the consumer and it's not explained to them what it can and cant show in terms of source material.
So...the 2015 displays can achieve essentially what we believe the UHD standard to be, but it's a calculated risk to purchase (IMO) until the standard is made official. If you were to ask the guys at THX, they aren't quite sure either - they're waiting to hear from content creators as to how they're going about producing content, nevermind what spec is required to present it in the home. It's like building a Pro Mod to a new chassis spec that's yet to be officially published, and then finding out you've built an outlaw car...that's today's analogy, innit.
1080p still has a place in the market whilst the engineers and accountants quibble over things at the UHD table. My 2p worth anyways.
4k is just the next level of evolution to empty your wallet.
Have a look at the distance scale to see how close you need to sit to see a difference over 1080p
http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
I've been quite impressed with the 4k pictures I've seen in costco but then I've been looking at them from 4ft away
About 3 years ago I had a panasonic 1080p set that cost around £1000, my dad bought a sony set that cost double that but was still 1080p
When I saw it I realised why, bluray on the panasonic was good but on the sony it was fantastic
theres a huge difference in the quality of the pictures between cheap and expensive sets even though they all say 1080p
Have a look at the distance scale to see how close you need to sit to see a difference over 1080p
http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
I've been quite impressed with the 4k pictures I've seen in costco but then I've been looking at them from 4ft away
About 3 years ago I had a panasonic 1080p set that cost around £1000, my dad bought a sony set that cost double that but was still 1080p
When I saw it I realised why, bluray on the panasonic was good but on the sony it was fantastic
theres a huge difference in the quality of the pictures between cheap and expensive sets even though they all say 1080p
wack said:
4k is just the next level of evolution to empty your wallet.
Have a look at the distance scale to see how close you need to sit to see a difference over 1080p
http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
I've been quite impressed with the 4k pictures I've seen in costco but then I've been looking at them from 4ft away
About 3 years ago I had a panasonic 1080p set that cost around £1000, my dad bought a sony set that cost double that but was still 1080p
When I saw it I realised why, bluray on the panasonic was good but on the sony it was fantastic
theres a huge difference in the quality of the pictures between cheap and expensive sets even though they all say 1080p
I've gone the 4K route because it makes sense to in my situation (107" screen, just over 8 feet seating distance - it works quite well). The issues to overcome with 4K, as has been mentioned before, are that 4K content, real 4K content, that makes use of HDR, isn't compatible with displays sold up until the last few months. Consumers however are not interested in the science of the numbers - most don't see a benefit of 1080p over SD if they sit the opposite side of the room to a small (say <50" display), so 4K displays with no futureproofing are being sold to those who are interested in the price and not the quality. The display size vs seating distance issue often falls of deaf ears despite it being based on sound principles and not just a 'people with good eyesight' poll.Have a look at the distance scale to see how close you need to sit to see a difference over 1080p
http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
I've been quite impressed with the 4k pictures I've seen in costco but then I've been looking at them from 4ft away
About 3 years ago I had a panasonic 1080p set that cost around £1000, my dad bought a sony set that cost double that but was still 1080p
When I saw it I realised why, bluray on the panasonic was good but on the sony it was fantastic
theres a huge difference in the quality of the pictures between cheap and expensive sets even though they all say 1080p
The market's been saturated with sub £1k 4K displays that are branded as 4K, but in reality, we're at the 'HD Ready' stage - they're the correct resolution, but cannot display colour space to the new standard. Displays that can, are nowhere near as cheap. They do an alright job of upscaling 1080p content, which is handy as that's essentially all we have to work with at the moment, but come September - Decemeber this year, an alternative source will be available more readily.
At this moment in time, the tide is changing and the genuinely impressive bits of kit are starting to hit stores (Samsung's JS9500 for example). There's a bit of moaning about 'why is an LCD TV being sold for £6k', but it kind of misses the point - it's a mighty fine piece and achieves 92% of DCI, where many OLEDs have yet to reach. There's a comment on the other thread about why people would spend this amount of money on a TV - I guess we all have our vices
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
so is the Sony I mentioned, s
t or not?? 
From what I've seen and read, they're quite good - out of the box, the RGB balance can be a bit wayward (too much green, not enough blue), but if you can pick one up that cheaply, go for it while you can. It's worth buying a Spears & Munsil hand forged disc to get it looking somewhere near accurate if you don't want to get a professional calibration done. They produce excellent images and have very good video processing ability. It's poor with 3D but very few folks are into that these days anyway.t or not?? There's a good review here that goes into the numbers and explains what's going on to produce the image:
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/kdl50w829b-20140302...
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
so is the Sony I mentioned, st or not??
Had one for about a year now, corking TV, especially at that price. We paid £799 for ours with a 5 year warranty, and it seemed a bargain at that price. Lovely looking set whilst off, picture quality is great for 1080p. Not really had a problem with all the Smart stuff (works every time we have needed it, and easy enough to navigate), sound quality is pretty good too. t or not?? Great for games too if you're into that sort of thing, also works well with Live footy (my old LG used to struggle with this).
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
And the 'Hard Drive' recording ? is that just any old Hard drive and it is pre-programmed to record via the EPG ?
It's got a good DLNA client built in too, so if you have any stuff you want to stream over the network, it works a treat in that respect too. Also supports Miracast, so it's easy to set up screen mirroring if you have an Android phone (funnily enough it works well with my Xperia).
slinky said:
If we were to shift the budget a touch, perhaps up to £850.....
Similar budget albeit I am looking at 55", clear leaders are:Sony KDL55W829 £779
Samsung UE55HU6700 £899
Not averse to an LG but they always use to look a bit cheap, all shiny plastic, happy to be proved otherwise
Interesting to hear that 4K not worth it for now, that is one dilemma fixed
I got some good advice on my thread:
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Edited by Adam B on Wednesday 4th March 22:41
slinky said:
Come on man, just get on with it 
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff