I'm finally not poor

I'm finally not poor.

What's a decent price for a 4K TV that's 40+ inches? Any recommendations?

Attached: Screenshot_20180315-195403~01.png (1440x922, 1.11M)

Other urls found in this thread:

projectorscreen.com/projector-screen-calculators
hometheaterreview.com/ultra-hd-blu-ray/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

1-2k get oled as well

4k is meme. get an lg oled full hd tv and save yourself some money

Got a 43" LG 4K for about £700, probably less than that now

Not a sony, they're overpriced trash.

Wait until the TCL 6 series comes out and buy that

I agree 4k is meme, but it won't be forever.
To enjoy 4k you need much bigger diameter.

So if your budget doesn't go above $2k get 1080p oled and be pleased.

>not poor
>starting diagonal is 40" and not 55"
what a fucking idiot

LG SJ9500 or LG SJ8500

oleds are already suffering degradation after 1 year of use. stop recommending this stupid garbage

Attached: 1520864236646.gif (499x381, 381K)

2 year warranty - exchange for new unit.

Sony X940, but has bad motion blur (impractical for high framerates).

What do people actually do with televisions?

>turn on
>advertisment
>MTV
>OOOGA BOOG A SHAKE BOOTY
>Some degenerate dating show
>Very fake news
>Turn off
>Go back to my 32" 4k PC monitor
>Watch free torrented shit with finely tuned MPV presets

Do people really pay money for that shit?

4k is a meme at further viewing distances make it pointless over 1080p.

4k is great at 40" at around 3 feet.

Listen to or we will literally laugh at you. Maybe get QLED tho but that's my preference.

yeah you do that

why are you 3 feet from your tv, you idiot?

>(((SMART))) TV
>goyflix

I got a 60 inch vizio 2016 m series for like 700 bucks at sams club and it's great. Doesn't have a TV tuner so it's really a display instead of TV. It also isn't very well lit but it handles motion well and colors are good.

>smart tv
Like watching fucking youtube on a sofa?
Last time I checket typing words in with a remote was an enormous pain in the ass
>Goyflix
My pc has a 100% netflix discount.

What kind of fucking retard recommends QLED over OLED? You do know that "QLED" is just a standard, shitty edge-lit LCD panel, right? Samsung slapping some shitty colour filter in with it and cranking up the brightness to eye-melting levels doesn't change the fact that it's an inherent shit technology. Even a mid-range full-array local dimming LCD like the Sony X900E/F would be far better than Samsung garbage.

For vidia

>be at my pc
>Recline in my chair all the way back
>Raise my 32" 4k monitor on the gas lift arm up and tilt it down
>enjoy watching shit while laying right under the gorgeoes panen
>TV plebs wish they knew such joys

literally anything but samsung
stay away at all costs

The only TV worth buying right now is the LG OLED ones. If you're really not poor, you can afford one.

Sony X850E is gold.

By that logic any lower res tv provides less quality from a distance

You are blind, that is your issue

bait

Just do the math using THX or Dolby optimal viewing distance.

4k 40-50" looks identical to 1080p 50" at distances over 6-7 feet.

For 4k at 10 feet you need like 120"

Attached: SmartSelectImage_2018-03-15-08-35-53.jpg (1275x1680, 410K)

Attached: SmartSelectImage_2018-03-15-08-36-38.jpg (1257x1670, 330K)

I'm grandpa tier old.

Do kids these days still use TVs? I was under impression kids watch movies on laptops and don't care about TVs anymore?

>THX or Dolby optimal viewing distance
i don't give a fuck
my 49" tv at 4k looks better than a 1080p 43"
the tv is 3-5 feet away from my feet while i'm laying in bed, i can move it around on a mobile stand. i can fucking tell the difference

i don't care about your poor eyesight

Have cheap xiaomi tv box for watching torrents and youtube on tv but yeah, I use PC more.

Was shocked to see how youtube looks like with no adblocker.

don't buy samsung qleds, even the q9 has backlight issues whitch results in vertical banding and non uniform gray

your 32" 4k display can't do 1080p@120hz like my 55" sony or lg tvs can, you mong

Still much less of a difference than 720 vs 1080.

Some arbitrary nubers from god knows who god knows where

WOW such an authority
Are they the same people who say you cant see faster than 24 fps?
>Do kids these days still use TVs?
I dont.
I do have a TV and nobody uses it.

Why do you fucking retard always recommend OLED shit? It's trash and has burn in.

But if you play games on a tv you get like 18-20 fps from your console anyways

retards*

Stay ass blasted.

You're really just showing your lack of understanding how resolution and viewing distance function.

projectorscreen.com/projector-screen-calculators
Scroll down for the resolution distance Calc.

2.5 to 3 feet is fine. At 5 feet youre closer to 1440p detail levels which will still look better than 1080p but still isn't going to be optimal.

top of the line samsing q8 for $4k

Attached: 5AEEA20E-BE65-4B3B-86F1-4EE817F5D39C.jpg (4032x3024, 932K)

>4k is meme
It's not and it's absolutely not at 40+ inches. The only real question is if it's worth buying one today. OP is "not poor". I'm not sure what that means. Perhaps he has money to spend on a TV and wants to buy one now. My take on 4k is that if you need and want a new TV then you should absolutely buy one that's 4k. Buying something that's 1080p today is just silly. But if you already have a nice 1080p TV and the question instead is "Should I upgrade now?" then my advice is NO. I've had 4k for a while now and it's nice. But there's just some pr0n and BBC's Planet Earth II and a handful of movies available right now. There's probably a few additional things but that's about it. Prices will probably be lower a year from now and there will probably be more content too.

>Do kids these days still use TVs?
They do use them but they don't watch TV, not in the traditional sense anyway. I don't either. It is a big screen and it's not like there's a huge choice in 40"+ computer monitors. Those "tv channels" people used in the 80s with advertisements and no pause button and no starting it when you feel like aren't used by anyone I know under 50.

There almost no content for 4k
I got a 65inch full hd las gen plasma for dirt cheap and never looked back.
I only watch series and movies, don't play games or watch tv so burn in logos or hud won't be a problem.

Yeah I understand no one is watching broadcast TV anymore but I'm also under impression kids don't care about big screen anymore and just watch netflix/youtube on laptop.

>Was shocked to see how youtube looks like with no adblocker.

I've heard something about it becoming unbearable now, but I don't really feel like disabling ublock and noscript. How bad is it exactly?

I'm 24 and recently bought a 42" 4k computer monitor (not a TV).
Just depends on the demographic

Don't be stupid OP 4K TVs are literally a huge waste of money. You require 8K video to watch true native 4K video and that's pretty much non-existent.

Attached: Colorcomp.jpg (1236x616, 212K)

I doubt their inputs support 120hz signals and most likely just uses a 60hz signal that gets interpolation to achieve 120hz.

its mostly for gaming.

do most modern games not support 4k?

>showing your lack of understanding how resolution and viewing distance function.
That's 90% of Sup Forums. Numbers mean nothing to them because they don't understand how they relate to the real world

Do you have a 10 or more FP32 TFLOP graphics card?

i have a [spoiler]xbox one x[/spoiler]

stupid shit

Attached: sketch1521121834408.png (750x500, 221K)

Not OP, but I need some TVs for a place with a lot of consoles and PCs, but I don't want to spend too much on them. What's something worth 400~500€, 4K, OK colors and low input lag and such?

so as someone not interested in movies at all is the only thing enjoyable in 4k modern games on a very high end pc?

Don't, 4K TVs require 8K video.
which virtually doesn't exist.

why do they require 8k video?

>You're really just showing your lack of understanding

You are yet to demonstrate your own.
You're citing some site with some arbitrary values but i'm not sure theyt know anything eitrher.

Can't see how long ago this was cause I'm on mobile at the moment but YouTube is retarded these days enjoy 3-4 banner type ads while you watch an ad every 2 minutes and in between ads the YouTuber shills product x halfway through his sentence on whatever the video topic is. It's a joke

So because you don't know that means it's wrong?

They're using actual math and if you look up other formulas online given from THX and other industry leaders in cinema specifications (like Dolby) the numbers match up.

It's okay to be ignorant, staying ignorant is however your own doing. You could educate yourself but you seemingly refuse to.

Yes precisely, Everytime the MP count increases so does the FP32 TFLOP requirement.

This is only for low-medium settings btw:
720p (0.9MP) = ~1.2 FP32 TFLOP
1080p (2.1MP) = ~2.5 FP32 TFLOP
1440p (3.7MP) = ~5 FP32 TFLOP
4k (8.3MP) = ~10 FP32 TFLOP

Because 99% of video out there is encoded with 4:2:0 chroma sub-sampling including blu-ray which means a small image is stretched out to by a factor of 2.

ie:
"720p" video is 360p true native video
"1080p" video is 540p true native video
"4K" video is 1080p true native video

Attached: 116334_Chroma-Examples.jpg (600x600, 75K)

Because there is a lot of 1080@120fps content...
I can understand for a pc screen but for a tv it's wasted money.
>inb4 console gaming
30 fps in most cases and 60 in rare cases (even on ps4 pro and xox)

this is exactly what they're doing. A $2k meme tv cost less than $200 to produce.

Sony x900 accept no substitutes

There's no shortage of wireless keyboards you can hook up to modern TVs.

>Because 99% of video out there is encoded with 4:2:0 chroma sub-sampling including blu-ray which means a small image is stretched out to by a factor of 2.
>ie:
>"720p" video is 360p true native video
>"1080p" video is 540p true native video
>"4K" video is 1080p true native video
While you're not wrong, that doesn't change that 4k 4:2:0 looks better than 1080p 4:2:0.

No, Sony TVs natively have 120hz panels. The awful thing is that you can't get 4k 120hz simply because HDMI 2.0 doesn't support the bandwidth

Uhd Blu ray is 4:2:2 dumbass

>that pic
Try with a red background, it's the a complete eyesore.

>TV

Then why doesn't it support 1080p 120hz?

These are the specs on the Sony Z9D sets. Their highest end non-OLED panel.

Attached: SmartSelectImage_2018-03-15-10-25-31.jpg (842x617, 117K)

It's mastered at 4:4:4 and delivered to consumers at 4:2:0 it isn't 4:2:2.

Yes it is 4:2:2 you dumb piece of shit. It's necessary for HDR metadata.
They do. Look up rtings reviews of the Sony x900e. They've commented that it even supports 1440p@120hz, which means that the limiting factor to hitting 4k 120hz is solely the input bandwidth. So if you're watching native 4k input the television uses the full 120hz for motion interpolation if you have those settings enabled

"smart" TV's are a stupid idea regardless of what kind of input device you can hook up to them. Think back, how good are 3 year old cellphones compared to modern cellphones? A TV screen will probably be fine in 5 year. The speakers on the TV will also be fine. The "smart tv" SOC will be outdated and probably not get any updates either. My opinion may be colored by the fact that I've always had a HTPC which can be replaced or upgraded. Somewhat related, I also think built-in speakers are a waste. I get why it's there, most people don't have a surround setup. And probably no HTPC either. But I still think that whole "smart" thing is stupid.

Uhd standard specifies 4:2:0 not sure what you're smoking

Right which means "4K" video on a 1080p tv looks best but you require "8K" video on a 4K tv for best experience.

10-bit handles HDR, the blue-ray itself is 4:2:0 CSS

Yeah I don't know why I thought otherwise, I guess I'm a retarded

>I'm finally not poor.
Wrong. You're spending your money on useless garbage. That's why you are poor in the first place

>"While UHD BD sticks with 4:2:0 chroma sub-sampling (like Blu-ray), it supports a higher 10- or 12-bit color depth and a much wider color gamut (P3 or Rec 2020) than the current Blu-ray (Rec 709) format."

hometheaterreview.com/ultra-hd-blu-ray/

dum fucks

Young people still like watching stuff with their significant other, friends, family, etc. When it's just me I'll lay in bed and watch shit on my laptop, when I'm with my GF or have friends over we will sit on the couch and watch something on the TV.

>Right which means "4K" video on a 1080p tv looks best but you require "8K" video on a 4K tv for best experience.

Mathematically sure, 4k 420 can be down sampled to 1080p 444. But im unsure exactly how good the scalers are in practice with this.

Bicubic scalers are required but UHD players have that already.

So what you're saying is its a shit show.

There are even products that are built socially to do this since many TV scalers are ass.

Also since AACS 2.0 has been broken many people are watching UHD blurays without a proper UHD bluray player.

Attached: SmartSelectImage_2018-03-15-10-57-02.jpg (1413x1712, 659K)

DVDs and VHS tapes I get close to free.

I never seem to watch recommended titles if I don't have them on a physical media.

>there's just some pr0n

Now that's an understatement

Whereas I have some physical media but it's been untouched for almost a decade. Everything I have is digitized by myself or downloaded from a private tracker

I watch movies on it via DLNA. Also >MTV and youtube.

What kind of retarded poorfag doesn't have their/a PC hooked up to their 4K TV too in current year? I play all my keyboard and mouse games on my monitor and then head over to the TV for controller play in maximum comfort.

>4k TV
>hooked up to pc

Dat input lag

I paid £1600 for mine, although it's gone down to £1200 now I think. 65 inch 4k HDR.

Samsung UE65MU6400UXXU

It's pretty good. I like that it has multiple USB 3.0 inputs, so I stick a bunch of HDDs behind it. 4k content is great, I use my PS4 pro. It's great for 1080p anime, not so much for the resolution, which is upscaled nicely, but because it properly plays 10 bit audio.

I tend to just use it to watch anime in HD a few feet away from me. There's something about a 65 inch screen at the foot of your feet that is comfy as fuck.

Attached: IMG_20180224_075917.jpg (3968x2976, 1.04M)

ye, we were theoretically going to get 12-bit 4:4:4 HEVC video for UHD but then jewish tricks happened

IN FACT it's entirely possible alot of the 4K releases are just 1080p upscales.

>not poor
Only poor people watch television/netflix/hollywood trash. You can take the poor guy out of the trash, but you can't take the trash out of the poor.

What does that have to do with owning a very large computer monitor?

>not poor
>wants a decent price 4k display that's 40"

>Have huge expensive TV
>Use it to watch anime

Money is wasted on you people

>Comes on an anime website
>Complains about anime

Attached: IMG_20180228_103022.jpg (401x357, 46K)

You're buying something that:
A: requires a 10 FP32 TFLOP GPU (his xbone x throttles to 4 FP32 TFLOPS when used)
B: requires 8K video for movies/tv shows which essentially doesn't even exist

You know what's the most delicious part 9/10 that anime was cell shaded in 720p or even worse 480p. So they minimally vectorize the shit out of it to scale it to 1080p.

Attached: 1521049421197.jpg (604x511, 71K)