Return to the CurtPalme.com main site CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum
A forum with a sense of fun and community for Home Theater enthusiasts!
Products for Sale ] [ FAQ: Hooking it all up ] [ CRT Primer/FAQ ] [ Best/Worst CRT Projectors List ] [ Setup Tips & Manuals ] [ Advanced Procedures ] [ Newsletters ]

 
Forum FAQForum FAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Photo AlbumsPhoto Albums  RegisterRegister 
 MembershipClub Membership   ProfileProfile   Private MessagesPrivate Messages   Log inLog in 
Blu-ray disc release list and must-have titles. Buy the latest and best Blu-ray titles to show off in your home theater!

Low-end TV recommendations

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic   Printer-friendly view    CurtPalme.com Forum Index -> Direct View Televisions and Monitors
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
garyfritz



Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 10031
Location: Fort Collins, CO


PostLink    Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:37 pm    Post subject: Low-end TV recommendations Reply with quote


        Register to remove this ad. It's free!
My son is working a triple-overtime day today. He texted me "This is my 'Earning a Black Friday TV' day" and "GOTTA GET DAT 4K GOODNESS" Smile

I told him 4k is basically a marketing scam, especially for the size / price point he'll be buying. I said unless he sits a foot or two from the screen he probably wouldn't notice the extra resolution -- especially since there isn't much 4k source material out there.

Then he started asking about HDR, and "Do you think OLED is better than HDR?" I said they're different things. OLED is the hardware tech used to display the pixels, HDR is software that changes the signal you send the to pixels. Basically displays don't have the dynamic range that your eye does, so HDR tries to "fake" more dynamic range. I haven't seen an HDR display, but the HDR pictures I've seen look artificially enhanced. I wouldn't want that on my TV.

But they have "HDR" TVs now and I don't know how that fits into things. I think they have wider dynamic range and a larger color gamut, both of which are good. I've read that if you put a lower-res HDR display next to a non-HDR high-res display, reviewers pick the HDR almost every time. So it must work pretty well.

Given that he's a 22-yr-old with a very limited budget who really shouldn't be blowing his money on a new TV, I'd like to reduce what he spends and make sure he gets good bang for his buck. I would tell him to just get a regular 1080p TV like I did, and it'll be good enough. But I doubt he'll listen to that. Next-best would be to get a 1080p HDR display, but there don't seem to be many of those. Seems like you have to go whole hog UHD 4k to get HDR from almost any manufacturer.

Any suggestions for him?
Gary
Back to top
kal
Forum Administrator


Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 14975
Location: Ottawa, Canada

TV/Projector: JVC DLA-RS56


PostLink    Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:05 pm    Post subject: Re: Low-end TV recommendations Reply with quote

garyfritz wrote:
I think they have wider dynamic range and a larger color gamut, both of which are good.

As long as the source is HDR too. Otherwise you're artificially stretching the colours out to be different from what the original content creator intended if you actually use the HDR space.

Quote:
I've read that if you put a lower-res HDR display next to a non-HDR high-res display, reviewers pick the HDR almost every time. So it must work pretty well.

Probably because the colours are unnaturally oversaturated. That doesn't make it right however - it's been faked. It's a common thing that TV manufacturers have done for years: They crank the default saturation up to artificially boost colours so that their display has the most 'pop' on the showroom floor.

Unless you have and watch HDR content, HDR on a display is pointless and is screwing up the image if you use the extended colour gamut.

Quote:
Given that he's a 22-yr-old with a very limited budget who really shouldn't be blowing his money on a new TV, I'd like to reduce what he spends and make sure he gets good bang for his buck. I would tell him to just get a regular 1080p TV like I did, and it'll be good enough.

Agreed. Unless he has a 4K Blu-ray player that supports HDR, or can watch other 4K content like the limited stuff on Netflix/Amazon/Youtube, there's little point to it today.

On direct view sized sets I agree that HDR is more interesting than the jump from 1080p -> 4K.

Kal

_________________

Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
Back to top
View user's photo album (18 photos)
Curt Palme
CRT Tech


Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 23155
Location: Langley, BC

TV/Projector: All of them!


PostLink    Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Serious advice: Not Vizio.

Less serious advice: Since he's not listening to dad, he will probably do what he wants anyway, so let him make the decision, buy some no name brand that will fail at the 14 month point, and he will learn a life lesson.
Back to top
garyfritz



Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 10031
Location: Fort Collins, CO


PostLink    Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ooohh, harsh. But apropos. Laughing

Thanks guys!
Back to top
jbltecnicspro



Joined: 23 Apr 2016
Posts: 398



PostLink    Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let us know what he decides to do. Some people have their hearts set on something and just will not let it go. I know someone who insisted on getting HDR and 4K and I told him that there's no point in it now because:

1. 4K on 65 inches is extremely small, especially at his family's viewing distance.
2. HDR is eventually moving to Rec 2020, which his set cannot do, so I estimate in a few years it'll be unable to fully deliver what HDR has to offer.
3. His pick was an IPS panel with just over 1200:1 contrast (ick).

But it's his money and his choice. I calibrated it and I must admit it looks pretty good for what it is, until you try to view it in a darkened setting and the blacks are just grays. Oh well.
Back to top
jmetal88



Joined: 06 Apr 2017
Posts: 47



PostLink    Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jbltecnicspro wrote:

1. 4K on 65 inches is extremely small, especially at his family's viewing distance.


I guess I haven't gotten with the times yet, as it sounds super weird to me to hear a sentence including "65 inches is extremely small" regarding a TV. Though I guess I can kind of understand it as I run a 1080p 40" set in my living room and have realized that my eyes can't fully resolve 1080p content on it while I'm sitting on my couch.
Back to top
jbltecnicspro



Joined: 23 Apr 2016
Posts: 398



PostLink    Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jmetal88 wrote:
jbltecnicspro wrote:

1. 4K on 65 inches is extremely small, especially at his family's viewing distance.


I guess I haven't gotten with the times yet, as it sounds super weird to me to hear a sentence including "65 inches is extremely small" regarding a TV. Though I guess I can kind of understand it as I run a 1080p 40" set in my living room and have realized that my eyes can't fully resolve 1080p content on it while I'm sitting on my couch.


The intent-impact gap is quite large with my statement. Very Happy What I was trying to get at was that it felt silly how my buddy was insisting on 4K on a 65-inch television. At the distance at which his family watches the thing you would see no discernible difference between a 1080p-only TV and his TV. I get that more pixels is always desirable but at that size - unless you're sitting stupid close to the TV (they aren't) - that size is too small. 65 inches in and of itself isn't a small TV - but to actually see tangible benefits of the higher resolution it is. That was what I was trying to say. Smile
Back to top
garyfritz



Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 10031
Location: Fort Collins, CO


PostLink    Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jbltecnicspro wrote:
Let us know what he decides to do. Some people have their hearts set on something and just will not let it go.

He ended up buying a refurbed 55" LG -- 55LF6300 or something similar. 4k and HDR so he's happy, and it only cost him something like $250. Looks like quite a nice set. The "smart" features are a helluva lot slicker than in the Samsung I bought last year.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic   Printer-friendly view    CurtPalme.com Forum Index -> Direct View Televisions and Monitors All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum