Time... lol
There's only so much I can watch in the time available, and at the moment I'm working through a few different series from Prime. There's Vikings, American Gods, The Tick (old and new) plus goodness knows how many episodes of Grand Tour.
Is now a bad time for buying a new / 4K TV on a budget?
- Thread starter Vexr
- Start date
Time... lol
There's only so much I can watch in the time available, and at the moment I'm working through a few different series from Prime. There's Vikings, American Gods, The Tick (old and new) plus goodness knows how many episodes of Grand Tour.
Soldato
Bah, was hoping you were going to tell me that the new android boxes were a lot better and faster! Although i have just picked up a 32gb SD card. Am hoping that will help with some local caching/streaming issues.
We've just started on the Tick, seems very fun so far and easy to watch. Perfect material for a quick episode.
We've just started on the Tick, seems very fun so far and easy to watch. Perfect material for a quick episode.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 9,503
I picked up a Hisense 50HA6100UK back in December when it was £329, along with a 15% offer code through eBay for the Argos outlet. Mostly for gaming on my Xbox, but also some TV (I was surprised to find that it has a built-in satellite receiver too so my existing Sky co-ax has been plugged into that!). It came to £279.65. I thought that at that price, if the TV was rubbish, then I wouldn't really feel bad for spending such a low amount. Turns out the TV is fantastic for that price. Given that it's replaced a nearly 13-year old 32" LG LCD TV that I paid over £1300 for back in 2006, I couldn't be happier. So much so, that today there's a 20% off offer on the eBay outlets again, so I've just bought the Hisense 43HA6200UK for £207.20 to replace our other 32" LCD in our lounge. It would have been a 50", but they don't seem to stock them and to be honest, even at 43" it's an upgrade so I'm happy. Yeah, budget TV sets are amazing value right now.
Caporegime
Pretty sure it's not got 64GB of RAM. That would be a beast.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,372
it's fair to say if OP is using a 1080p set which is over 12 years old. he just needs to go out and buy any tv that is within his pitiful £400 budget.
i don't even know why he's looking into HDMI versions, etc. he wants a 43" tv which is essentially the smallest available these days unless you buy from a brand which nobody really wants. okay i get samsung do a 40" but it's niche.
Some are, yes, but not that Linsar 50UHD520 @ £200 on Hot Deals right now. It's a poor TV, not just by UHD TV standards, but by 50" TV standards in general.
The biggest issue is the dull picture. Anyone with a room that catches a bit of summer sun is going to have to draw the curtain to view. A typical budget LED TV might kick out somewhere between 400 and 600 Candelas per metre squared. This Linsar scrapes by at 200.
As a UHD set the news isn't great either. You can't expect DolbyVision or HDR10+, but this set lacks even the basics of HDR10 and HLG.
There are lots of different ideas about what "pretty decent" means.
It's only my opinion, but I think a minimum standard is something that can do WCG and have a decent stab at HDR in HLG, HDR10, either HDR10+ or DolbyVision. £400 for something around the 50" mark just isn't enough to get those boxes ticked.
being realistic you can get a decent 50 4k tv for his budget lets not start being silly say it hasnt hdr 10 bit panel blah blah but also dont say you cant not get a decent tv you can but its obviously not in the 1000 pound range like your suggesting.
Soldato
I didn't think there were any TVs with a 50 Hz panel?
[ most tv's less than £500 50/60hz panel refresh not talking the >200/300hz motion figures... it was predominately 3d that brokered the 100/120hz ]
personally very little of the material I watch is available in hdr ...if you are subscribed to netflix, you're into them for £150p/y, so can afford a more expensive tv too.
BUT, there aren't many good quality 1080tv, rec709, available anymore at £400 .... which is what I had payed for a 40" panasonic et60, 120hz/ips.
I think if you genuinely want hdr, minimum is £550, 55" q6fn/fx750 purhased judiciously with ebay deals.
yes it's a good point, have to consider too what material you would genuinely watch in hdr (what percentage of time are hdr tv's showing hdr material anyway)
personally very little of the material I watch is available in hdr ...if you are subscribed to netflix, you're into them for £150p/y, so can afford a more expensive tv too.
BUT, there aren't many good quality 1080tv, rec709, available anymore at £400 .... which is what I had payed for a 40" panasonic et60, 120hz/ips.
I think if you genuinely want hdr, minimum is £550, 55" q6fn/fx750 purhased judiciously with ebay deals.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,372
if you want HDR then to get one which does it any justice would be £1000 minimum at 49".
the others below this price point are 8 bit with dithering or just not bright enough.
the others below this price point are 8 bit with dithering or just not bright enough.
Which is part of the point I was trying to get across to @~>Dg<~. The sub £400 UHD TVs are, for the most part, the equivalent of a 1080p TV with some extra resolution. The resolution on its own makes little practical difference on a 50" screen at the average viewing distances needed for typical UK living rooms.
Cheers for the advice all. Think I'll stick with my current TV and step up the ice treatment to counter the screen warping effect its suffering from as it at least remains very bright and colourful, unlike some I've seen. I think the pipe dream listed in my OP can wait for another day, especially as I'm without a console/4K content currently.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,372
you bought a £700 monitor for your pc yet want to spend buttons on a tv and expect it to be decent and have all the latest features. just doesn't compute.
A monitor is more useful to me including for work. I didn't spend quite that much on it as I bought it on sale. I was also able to sell my old monitor for about £350. 100 hz native FreeSync @ 3440x1440 at much closer to the £500 mark rather than the £1k of the old overclockable ones was also something I'd been waiting quite a while for, and when NVidia announced they were opening up to FreeSync then that was the final checkbox ticked for me to take the plunge.
When it comes to a nice new TV, I'm having a harder time justifying any significant spend, especially if by the time I get a console / regular 4K content to watch then it may already be old hat compared with HDMI 2.1 models. As my current TV no doubt has 0 resale value, it'll also be a nastier blow to the wallet than my monitor upgrade was.
When it comes to a nice new TV, I'm having a harder time justifying any significant spend, especially if by the time I get a console / regular 4K content to watch then it may already be old hat compared with HDMI 2.1 models. As my current TV no doubt has 0 resale value, it'll also be a nastier blow to the wallet than my monitor upgrade was.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,372
yeah but already explained for HDMI 2.1 to be useful you need to spend at least £1000 on a tv.
it doesn't matter if in 5 years you can get a £400 tv with 2.1 if the £400 tv can't do anything beneficial with it.
it doesn't matter if in 5 years you can get a £400 tv with 2.1 if the £400 tv can't do anything beneficial with it.