|Not logged in [Login - Register]|
|You Are Not Registered Or Not Logged In|
Corsa Sport » Message Board » Off Day » Geek Day » What's the best 55" telly I can buy for a budget of £1k » Post Reply
||posted on 9th Dec 15 at 06:40|
The theory behind curving a screen is sound enough. If you sit directly in front of a flat screen you will be closer to the centre than to the edges and corners. If the plane is very big or you sit very close, this will result in an uneven viewing angle as well as an image appearing slightly smaller than it is.
The solution to this is a spherical screen or, to a lesser degree, a curved one.
With a curved or spherical screen there'll be a sweet spot directly at the centre of the curve/sphere, which is the exact same distance from the centre, sides and (in the case of a spherical screen) corners of the screen.
This sweet spot is tiny though and at every other viewing position the issue that the curved screen tries to solve is ironically made worse, as sitting slightly to the side of the screen will give a very sharp viewing angle to the part of the screen closest to you.
Add to this the fact that you'd need a huge screen or tiny viewing distance for a flat screen to present an issue in the first place.
Unless you're looking to buy a 80"-100" TV, just forget about curved screens. You're paying extra for something that makes the product worse.
||posted on 8th Dec 15 at 21:16|
Found this and it looks decent. Anyone think it's worth it??
||posted on 8th Dec 15 at 21:14|
That's a bland opinion :lol:
Care to elaborate??
||posted on 8th Dec 15 at 06:41|
quote:Nothing whatsoever. It's worse in almost every single aspect.
||posted on 7th Dec 15 at 21:02|
I don't like curved tvs especially for football. They aren't great if putting in the corner as they suffer from reflection a bit more than flat.
||posted on 7th Dec 15 at 14:25|
What's the deal with curved tv's???
||posted on 4th Dec 15 at 12:27|
||posted on 30th Nov 15 at 23:21|
Think superior than Pioneer Kuro contrast ratios and stupidly vibrant colours, that's OLED (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED) - it makes plasma and LCD (+ LED backlit LCD's) displays look poor in comparison. Plus, most of them do (proper) HDR (increase dynamic range) which they'll offer on UHD blu-rays.
Problem is, manufacturers (certainly the case with Panasonic) have been slow bringing OLED panels to market because they don't believe consumers would purchase them without big headline grabbing figures, like '4K'. Which is why OLED tv's aren't particularly cheap (£4K for LG's 55") and aren't as advanced as they should be in terms of technology etc.
Btw, if you do opt for a 4K tv then make sure you view plenty of SD material (what's typically watched by most viewers) - some tv upscalers are pretty bad.
[Edited on 30-11-2015 by Dom]
||posted on 30th Nov 15 at 21:24|
Well this makes no sense to me at all :lol:
||posted on 30th Nov 15 at 19:49|
That's fine, if it's worth it, it's worth the money.
||posted on 30th Nov 15 at 17:29|
Unfortunately that doesn't change the fact that Netflix/Amazon and the likes (Youtube is pretty bad too) still heavily compress their content. Only way to really enjoy 4K is to wait for UHD blu-ray players/media but you'll be paying a pretty penny for the privilege when they hit the market next year.
||posted on 30th Nov 15 at 17:23|
Looking forward to getting 1gig/sec Internet next Friday. Should be enough to stream stuff like that?
||posted on 30th Nov 15 at 17:21|
I'll be surprised if the plasma isn't '1080'; certainly my brother has a Sony plasma from about then and it does the full wack.
And personally i think the differences between a plasma/LCD panel and OLED is vastly superior than jumping from 1080 to 4K, which is why i'd recommend holding off.
Problem with Netflix and other streaming services is the compression and i suspect it'll be the same for 4K broadcasted channels - a lot of our 1080 content here is heavily compressed. Saying that, hopefully codecs like Perseus get off the ground as it does look pretty promising for streaming/broadcasting 4 and 8K content.
[Edited on 30-11-2015 by Dom]
||posted on 30th Nov 15 at 16:25|
quote:8 year old 42" plasma is likely 1024x768. Plus LG's plasma screens were never that impressive to begin with.
While an inferior technology, all in all, a modern LCD panel will drive circles around a mid-range 8 year old plasma panel.
Not to mention it'll look a lot better in the living room as the plasma will be a fatty. :lol:
That said, people drool over demonstration videos running at 4K resolution in the showroom and fail to acknowledge that they aren't able to actually watch anything but a handful of Netflix shows at that resolution once they get the TV home.
||posted on 30th Nov 15 at 14:57|
I would be watching all my GoPro videos back in 4K when I get one after new year.
||posted on 30th Nov 15 at 12:45|
If you've got a plasma already then i'd be waiting until OLED tv's come into your budget; that and the fact that it'll take a while for 4K to really hit the market :nod:
||posted on 30th Nov 15 at 09:50|
quote:Holy marketing mumbo jumbo, that makes absolutely no sense at all. :lol:
But yes, 3840x2160 resolution is essentially 4K.
||posted on 29th Nov 15 at 23:36|
Sony android tv sets have come under alot of fire due to the poor android interface. Laggy, unstable and pretty much useless.
||posted on 29th Nov 15 at 16:53|
||posted on 29th Nov 15 at 16:51|
Quote from description
||posted on 29th Nov 15 at 13:53|
That looks superb but does it come with all the features I want lol. I've seen a few in the shops and the pic quality of them is unreal. No flicker or a hint of blur. I thought the HD on my current plasma was good but it's not a patch on some of them.
||posted on 29th Nov 15 at 12:21|
||posted on 28th Nov 15 at 16:44|
As above. I'd ideally want one with built in android tv and 4K. Is it possible to find one with that budget?? If not what's my best options??