# Looking at new TVs for the future



## Steve615 (Feb 5, 2006)

I did not really know where to try and post this topic. So, I figured I would give it a go in here for starters.

Note to the mods: If this would fit in better in another forum, please feel free to move it.

I have been debating the notion of investing in a new HDTV for a little while now. I currently own a 55" Sony BRAVIA 3DTV, a 47" LG 1080p LCD HDTV and a 32" 720p Haier HDTV.

I have been looking around at Vizio, LG, Sony, Philips and some other brands.

Well, Sony sends me an e-mail news flash on their next generation of HDTV today. I must say, at first look, I am quite impressed with them.

It appears that Sony is going "big" with the new models. There are three sizes listed on the page they are advertising them on. 55", 65" and 84".

I will attach a link to the page that shows their new HDTVs with this post.

https://store.sony.com/c/S_4KTV/en/c/S_4KTV?mid=1033&rid=&cid=41776080&XID=E:1033:HOI24KKULTRAHDTV

A note of interest / warning in regards to the attached link. Be prepared for sticker shock. :sure:


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

There's always the *High Definition Displays* forum


----------



## Steve615 (Feb 5, 2006)

Please feel free to move this thread, anytime. 

Did you happen to get a look at those prices? :sure:


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

Interesting, but how much 4K content is available yet? As for the price I dont consider that unreasonable for such a new technology. I remember the first large flat panel I saw in the 90's (a 50" plasma) was $25,000 and my first HDTV in '04 was $2400. I had to get RP LCD as a plasma was still $4000 We have really gotten spoiled by how cheap technology has become, without even taking inflation into account you can buy a 42" HDTV today for less than a 25" color CRT was in the 70's


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Those prices for 55-65" aren't that far off of what plasma was not too long ago... so those arguably aren't bad prices. The 84" set costs as much as a car, though!


----------



## Steve615 (Feb 5, 2006)

Agreed in regards to pricing, and how far technology has advanced with TVs in a relatively short span of time. I still remember shelling out $3,500 - $4,000 for one of the first plasma TVs that LG manufactured. It was a 42" 720p version. As for the 4K content available currently, I suppose the link to Sony's page in my OP pretty much sums that up, for the time being.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

longrider said:


> Interesting, but how much 4K content is available yet? As for the price I dont consider that unreasonable for such a new technology. I remember the first large flat panel I saw in the 90's (a 50" plasma) was $25,000 and my first HDTV in '04 was $2400. I had to get RP LCD as a plasma was still $4000 We have really gotten spoiled by how cheap technology has become, without even taking inflation into account you can buy a 42" HDTV today for less than a 25" color CRT was in the 70's


A host of 4K Blu-ray movies are being released this summer.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

MysteryMan said:


> A host of 4K Blu-ray movies are being released this summer.


Yes and no...

Sony is releasing some "Mastered in 4K" Blu-rays which are basically the superbit of Blu-rays... in theory they might be identical to already released Blu-rays of those same movies (many of which already were mastered from 4K transfers)...

The only true 4K content I have heard of are some dedicated hard-drive based setups that will have 4K content pre-loaded on them... along with a promise of a way to add content later (either via a visit by someone to your house or digital download).

But there are no 4K Blu-rays that will actually contain 4K content coming anytime soon.

Back to the TV part of the topic, though... I wouldn't jump on one of these unless I needed a new tv. I feel like any realistic quantity and selection of 4K-native content is a ways off... and unless you sit a couple of feet from your tv you might not see the detail anyway... and we still don't have good providers (be it Dish, DirecTV, cable companies, or online streaming) of true HD content today without flaws... so I think asking for 4K content delivery is just begging to be disappointed in overcompressed or overpriced stuff.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Several issues...

(i) Download caps. A 4k movie is about 110 GB.

(ii) Streaming. A 4k movie requires, minimum, 25 mbps.

One more thing.

Blu-Ray has been available for awhile, and its market share (by all discs sold) is about 25%, growing very slowly.

Will there be a market for 4k movies? yes.

But not as large as many people believe, at least for the next decade.

Let's not forget that one decade ago, most consumers bought CDs at a 1,411.2 kbit/s.

Today, most people buy MP3s, with 11% of the data that the same track held in 2003.

And very few complain.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Let's not forget that one decade ago, most consumers bought CDs at a 1,411.2 kbit/s.
> 
> Today, most people buy MP3s, with 11% of the data that the same track held in 2003.
> 
> And very few complain.


I agree with the other things you said... but this last bit (pun semi-intended) is probably apples vs oranges.

With music, there has been a large portion of customers who want portability more than they wanted quality. The Sony Walkman was huge in its day, much like the iPod was for Apple... and the thing they both had an common was giving fairly high quality audio in a way that was conveniently portable.

Video doesn't quite have this same customer base. Yes, many like to watch things on their phones or tablets or even their computer... but people are still buying larger TVs for their homes than ever before. They really don't even make "small" TVs for home use anymore if you think about it.

So the drive for quality in video is going to demand those higher bitrates and larger file sizes you talk about... whereas people are simultaneously trying to carry more and more music around with them.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steve615 said:


> Please feel free to move this thread, anytime.
> 
> Did you happen to get a look at those prices? :sure:


Yup, I've been looking at the prices for awhile. Give it a year or so and the prices should be more reasonable. One would hope.

Rich


----------



## gov (Jan 11, 2013)

The sony 4K 84" TV is a tad pricey for now, and also, 84" just (IMO) isn't even close to large enough. As noted elsewhere, Panny is looking into making sets at a 4 times (area) what they are making now (that is, instead of making 4 65" TVs out of one blank, they would make a single 130" TV) (and yes, I want one) For the time being, a Sharp 80" or 90" (I've seen for $4000 and $9000 lately) would be a little more budget friendly. And you can sit at a normal distance and see what detail they do have, unlike the Sony where for my 55 year old eyes, the 4K only looks 4K within about 4 to 5 feet of it.Seems like the LG 84" has the same glass as the Sony, and isn't so pricey, but if I am wrong about that let me know.


----------



## Steve615 (Feb 5, 2006)

I received an e-mail from a local electronics retailer this evening. I have done considerable business with them in the past. They are now selling an 80" Sharp 3D 1080p 240Hz LED Smart TV for $5,499. That doesn't seem too bad, considering the size and technology that comes with it. I will attach a direct link to that page.

http://www.electronicexpress.com/catalog/22983/Sharp-LC80LE857?utm_campaign=emma%202013-04-29o&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=https%3A//app.e2ma.net/userdata/24390/assets/04292013o_09.jpg


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I think 4K is silly, but if you want it you can buy Seiki 50" 4K TVs for as little as $1200 including shipping! I've seen some positive online reviews, but since it is a pretty unknown brand in the US, who knows how long it may last.

http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=SEIKSE50UY04&ref=froogle&omid=103&CAWELAID=230005120000013605

If they made one in the 32" class for under $1000 I'd buy it as a computer monitor, but unless you sit 5 feet away, 4K is pointless on a 50" TV except for bragging rights.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

4K may not be a "necessity" for the living room for awhile...but if I had my way, every digital theater would be 4K already. And unfortunately, for me, there isnt one within 50 miles...if you havent seen a 4K movie yet....you're missing out.


----------



## Steve615 (Feb 5, 2006)

A friend of mine recently informed me that he spotted a 47" Vizio 120 Hz 3DTV at Walmart for $545. He said it was a display model, and comes with a one year manufacturer warranty. Even though it is a display model, that seems like a good deal to me. I have not had any experience with the Vizio line of TVs, yet. But, that may change, if I happen to find one of these TVs at that price.


----------

