Spec TV for a ftb.

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-resolution-201312153517.htm


The results are now in, and an overwhelming majority of participants correctly identified the 4K TV, indicating that there exists a perceptible difference even from as far as 9 feet away on a 55in screen

how does the graph explain how a 55" at 9 feet you can see 4k?

your graphs show at that distance on a 55" 1080p is just worth it the thick line shows where you see full benefit. so apparently according to the graphs you can only see marginal benefit of 1080p.

however they could correctly see 4k at that distance.

"So there you have it: the superior resolution of 4K over 1080p is visible on a 55″ screen from 9 feet away"

told you the graphs are BS.
 
Last edited:
I recently got a Phillips 55pft6309 with ambilight, refurbished for just under 400.

Phillips6309Ambilight.jpg


I saw the TV a few years ago in the flesh, and have been waiting for ages for it to come down to a price I can justify.

The ambilight would look great in a bedroom. Plus it has a 2D to 3D conversion - which actually works.

Overall I couldn't recommend the Tv enough. The only let down is the built in android is bit slow. If you're using external devices (I use an RKM v5) that's not such a concern.
 
Just to give dimensions and perspective.

Living Room - 4.91m x 3.62m (16'1" x 11'11") - Coving to the ceiling, living flame effect gas fire with wooden surround, marble insert and hearth, laminate flooring, double radiator, walk in bay window to the front.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gg208btr1hauehy/Screenshot_2015-11-25-18-04-38.png?dl=0away

This image shows it best for perspective - TB being in the far right!
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23317044/IMG-20160122-WA0001.jpg

I have added to the dimensions so they are a little more realistic!

By my estimate average viewing distance is 10feet give or take 2 foot? (Have added dimensions)
https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public?preview=TV+Dimension+(1).jpg
 
Last edited:
vila said:
So if thats what you know believe then why do you consistently tell people not to get a 4k tv?

In fact why are you in this thread ;

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18672940&page=4

Using those graphs and others that say the same thing to make the opposite argument you are making now?
Click to expand...

because 40 inches is far too small for 4k. i already stated before i used to believe those graphs before i looked at them properly. they just don't add up.

you have to have a happy medium.

the minimum size to get the true benefit of 4k is like 55" at normal viewing distances. basically the bigger the better. nobody sits 4 feet away from their tv. that isn't a normal viewing distance.

you can still see the differences on smaller sets but IMO it's just not worth the premium you have to pay for 4K.

40" is just far too small. it's tiny in fact. you would struggle to notice any difference at all between 1080p and 4k from say 8-12 feet.

as you get bigger it makes it more worthwhile. but the distances on those graphs is laughable. they need to be doubled if not tripled.

i'm against 4k for 2 reasons. you need a large tv and to sit close enough and you need to have enough content to justify buying it over 1080p. basically 1080p is actually a very high res. it's more than enough IMO for the next 10 years.

most broadcast tv is still SD. the stuff that is HD is nowehere near 1080p.

broadcast needs to catch up. we are moving resolutions too fast. we need broadcasters to start getting rid of SD and adopting HD as the minimum standard.
 
Bug One said:
I recently got a Phillips 55pft6309 with ambilight, refurbished for just under 400.

I saw the TV a few years ago in the flesh, and have been waiting for ages for it to come down to a price I can justify.

The ambilight would look great in a bedroom. Plus it has a 2D to 3D conversion - which actually works.

Overall I couldn't recommend the Tv enough. The only let down is the built in android is bit slow. If you're using external devices (I use an RKM v5) that's not such a concern.
Click to expand...

i'd hate to think how much you payed for a gimmick tbh.

that light is actually decreasing the PQ.

look into BIAS lighting. it should be pure white or nothing.
 
Psycho Sonny said:
because 40 inches is far too small for 4k. i already stated before i used to believe those graphs before i looked at them properly. they just don't add up.

you have to have a happy medium.

the minimum size to get the true benefit of 4k is like 55" at normal viewing distances. basically the bigger the better. nobody sits 4 feet away from their tv. that isn't a normal viewing distance.

you can still see the differences on smaller sets but IMO it's just not worth the premium you have to pay for 4K.

40" is just far too small. it's tiny in fact. you would struggle to notice any difference at all between 1080p and 4k from say 8-12 feet.

as you get bigger it makes it more worthwhile. but the distances on those graphs is laughable. they need to be doubled if not tripled.

i'm against 4k for 2 reasons. you need a large tv and to sit close enough and you need to have enough content to justify buying it over 1080p. basically 1080p is actually a very high res. it's more than enough IMO for the next 10 years.

most broadcast tv is still SD. the stuff that is HD is nowehere near 1080p.

broadcast needs to catch up. we are moving resolutions too fast. we need broadcasters to start getting rid of SD and adopting HD as the minimum standard.
Click to expand...

But you were so adamant that the graph "proved your opinion" ... why so fickle what changed your opinion... an article about a test done by Richer sounds from 2013?

Perhaps you want to reply back in the other thread and apologise to the people you were arguing with so aggressively with for posting" BS graphs " then ... ?
 
Psycho Sonny said:
i'd hate to think how much you payed for a gimmick tbh.

that light is actually decreasing the PQ.

look into BIAS lighting. it should be pure white or nothing.
Click to expand...
As stated, just under £400. So not a huge amount for a quality 55in 3d TV.

PQ?

I love the ambilight. I'll be adding Hue lights either side too.

Each to their own.
 
Last edited:
Bug One said:
I recently got a Phillips 55pft6309 with ambilight, refurbished for just under 400.

Phillips6309Ambilight.jpg


I saw the TV a few years ago in the flesh, and have been waiting for ages for it to come down to a price I can justify.

The ambilight would look great in a bedroom. Plus it has a 2D to 3D conversion - which actually works.

Overall I couldn't recommend the Tv enough. The only let down is the built in android is bit slow. If you're using external devices (I use an RKM v5) that's not such a concern.
Click to expand...

Thanks for all the input people.

I can appreciate both the input you are giving and to be fair I dont think either of you could clearly come to agreement, there will always be subjection/experience etc.

I think the best way is to simply view the TV in person at different sizes and decide myself.

Best example I can give is, 120hz, like night and day being an FPS gamer. I can tell by mouse movements and looking at the screen. My friends on the other hand dont notice a thing, I can imagine PQ being the same.

My initial post was to get a bang per buck and like you have stated that can also be subjective. I think the nail was hit on the head that I am by no means an enthusiast and probably never will be on home theatre etc, this was just the place to post.

Looking at the image above, I would have probably said that philips for £500 would have been more than ample.

To go against that I have ordered the 65" hisense from amazon as the G/F said she preferred it.

Anyway, now onto the TV for our bedroom, do I just ignore all the above and get an OLED 55 :) or save the cash and get something around £500 :)
 
why did she prefer the hisense? purely because it's bigger? it's a decent enough tv but a lot of money should anything go wrong in 13+ months.

whatever you do on the second tv please buy it from somewhere like john lewis where you get a 5 year warranty with every tv as standard (doesn't cost you any extra).

OLED would be wasted in the bedroom unless that is where you do the majority of your viewing.

go with the 55" sony i linked earlier from JL.
 
£140 is quite expensive for that from ikea tbh. you could probably get something better elsewhere.

http://www.oakfurnitureland.co.uk/furniture/bevel-natural-solid-oak-widescreen-tv-cabinet/1441.html

you can buy solid oak which lasts a lifetime for not a hell of a lot more. whereas those ikea cabinets if they get marked once they are finished. it's cheap chipboard wrapped in a nice thin cover. one accidental knock and it's ruined. whereas an oak cabinet will last forever so long as you treat the wood every now and again.

i would look elsewhere ikea is mutton dressed as lamb it's not that good apart from buying tealights, cutlery, picture frames, etc basically small cheap items.


as for blu ray player just buy whatever is cheapest. there isn't much difference in them tbh these days. in fact an old ps3 console will do just fine. you can pick up sony budget models for like £40 delivered. th emoney saved on blu ray players put towards a decent tv cabinet.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom