Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472 Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
|
At this point it is really hard not to just go with 4K given the price difference isn't massive. I would go 4K because the higher resolution is going to be better. If your eyes are older than 30's, you might not be able to discern the difference between 4K and 1080p at that distance though.
Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.” Visit our archived Minecraft world! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it. |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
I did. I just needed to cut to the chase without so much superfluous info. I strangled my built-in editor years ago. If you've seen my Mandalorian posts, you know this already.
Thanks. Yeah, I'll probably get the 4K. My primary vehicles are Netflix, and, once again, Disney+ when all the Star Wars goodness fully kicks in a year from now (and beyond). Aside from Jeopardy and random HGTV or Food Network stuff, I really don't watch regular TV programming (sitcoms, sports, news, dramas, etc.). This is primarily a movie/streaming show watching thing for me. Honestly, I was just looking at Vizio. My mom has two and they look great and she's had both for quite some time with no issue. It's got the SmartCast(?) thing built in with Netflix, Disney+, etc. all onboard so I really won't even bother with a standalone Apple TV (I've got an old, earlier-generation little black Apple TV that I use solely for Netflix access now...it doesn't even have Disney+). I'll sell or give it away. The two pubs I go to (well, used to go to before the world shit the bed) had nothing but Vizio models in various sizes all around and they always looked nice. Unless I just find an amazing deal, I'm not going to lay out Samsung money. Oddly enough, my dad and stepmom have had four Samsungs since about 2010 and have had little glitches/quirks with every one of them, including the big 60" 4K they bought less than six weeks ago. My Mom, on the other hand, with her two "cheap-o" Vizio models hasn't had any issues that I know of (believe me, I'd hear if she did). That 60 vs. 120 thing...what should I be doing/looking for on that? I know nothing about TVs, other than how to turn them on. The last one I bought outright was a Magnavox tube TV back in 2001 or so, and then it was replaced by a coal-powered hand-me-down RCA 26" LCD model some time ago. This is my first modern, LCD, HD, smart TV purchase, which is why I'm so clueless about everything. If I was going today to get one, this is what I was going to shoot for. It's light years beyond, in every way, what I currently have, and it's in my price/need range. |
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472 Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
|
Or you end up buying a box (like AppleTV) and then you keep it updated as well. In the end, you have to upgrade something along the way to stay current. If you buy a nice set now it will last you and then when it is outdated you could buy a box to keep it going.
Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.” Visit our archived Minecraft world! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it. |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
I've looked at those formulas that help determine such things, but they're guidelines and, to me, allow for wiggle room based on various factors (one's watching usage/frequency, location/size of the area it's going, subjective stuff like one's specific needs/importance they place on TV activity, etc.). According to many of the charts I'm seeing, I should be looking at 50-55" for the distances involved, but that just ain't gonna happen.
Just to be precise, I just now re-measured from the two places I most watch TV from...if I'm at my desk and glance over, I'm right at 6 feet. If I'm sitting on the couch, that's actually 11 feet (so both a little less, and a little more, than my initial 7-10 feet estimate in my opening post). Occasionally I like to lie into floor with a couple of pillows/blanket, and that's about 5-6 feet. But when I'm hunkering down to truly watch something, it'll be from the couch, at ~11 feet away (more in the 10+' range, but I just rounded up a few more inches to 11'). Thing is, my current old 26" is seen fine from that couch distance, so 14" additional inches will be plenty. I had some old posterboard and last night I cut out a rectangle that represented the height/width of the 40" models (just took an average...they were all within less than 1" of each other) I'm considering and I plopped it in front of my current TV. Naturally, it completely covered it and pooched out in all directions in such a way that drove home "wow, that is significantly larger than what I've had all these years". And when I factor in the half-inch bezel around any of this newer stuff vs. the nearly-2" one around my current TV, the size of that posterboard is super close, minus about an inch in each direction of the actual viewable screen area. I was looking at these TVs in Walmart yesterday and just about every brand had a super tiny bezel...I didn't see one over 5/8" of an inch, and most were at a half-inch or slightly below. The screen is making up most of that size, which is nice. I won't go with 46" and above because a) it's not necessary, b) I'm not that hardcore/frequent of a TV viewer and c) my place is small/compact and I'm not looking to have so much of that particular space/wall area taken up by something so large (see "a" and "b" above). I don't need the thing being the overpowering focal point of an already small-ish, cozy room. I'm just after a slight step up in size/clarity than what I've known all these years - and with built-in Disney+ access - so I can stop watching The Mandalorian (and whatever else is to come) on a damn iPhone SE (first-generation, mind you) and/or 13" MacBook Pro. I can't even watch it on this 26" TV because my old-ass Apple TV doesn't have Disney+ as one of the channels(?). I've watched every single episode, except for two, of The Mandalorian on a 4" iPhone SE. Enough of that shit. In fact, when I think of it all from that perspective, I'm not going from 26" to 40"...I'm going from 4-13" to 40". That's my primary focus/goal, really. Anything outside that is just an incidental, included perk of going up in size. If I already owned a 35-40" TV and it just felt "too small" or whatever, then yeah...it would be easier for me to look at the 46-55" range, but coming from this dinky mid-2010's 26" model (and the two far smaller things I've been doing all my Star Wars streaming fare on, The Clone Wars stuff as well) along with the posterboard test above, I feel good about 40". Last edited by psmith2.0 : 2021-01-17 at 11:48. |
Space Pirate
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta
|
The presumption that the desire to create a theater experience drives those formulas, right?
As someone close to Scates' age I can attest to the fact that we grew up watching shit quality and shit sized televisions. We can endure snow, hiss, and small sizes without being adversely affected! ... |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
It's true!
I'm not sure about the formulas. I just don't really need an overwhelming, immersive thing though if that's what those numbers are shooting for (because they do seem a bit excessive, to me). But I'm out of this loop, so what do I know? My needs/expectations, as always, are modest and grounded. I'm just watching a bit of TV, that's all. I'm not looking to have my mind/eyes blown out of my skull for the privilege. I also intend to use the built-in speaker/audio the TV comes with, so go ahead and tack that on to my heresy/sacrilege tab and I'll settle up at closing time. drew does make a point...when you've grown up watching Starsky & Hutch and Three's Company via coal-powered, chicken-wire resolution pieces-of-shit where someone gets chosen to stand and hold the antenna for a clearer picture (or you wrap aluminum foil around the rabbit ears and hope for the best), it kinda molds your thinking about this stuff. You're easily impressed/pleased with any level of improvement or upgrade. Now, my niece and nephew, however, are another story completely...and would require/demand 8K 60" TVs for their bedrooms, no doubt. But they're children of the 21st century, and pretty much came out of the womb with an iPhone and Instagram account. I was at my Dad's last night, and I was wrong upthread...his new Samsung 4K is 65" (not 60" like I thought) and takes up the entire wall above their fireplace. We watched some Jason Statham movie on Netflix and the whole time I was like "damn, this is just too big...". I felt like it was overtaking my soul or something. When my eyes have to travel/scan across the screen, then I feel like I'm being overwhelmed and it's just too much real estate. I feel like I'm going to miss something important because I'm looking at the wrong part of the screen at any given moment! It's the reason why I've always only considered the 21.5" iMac vs. the 27". I've used both plenty, but when I sit at a 27" iMac, I feel like it's going to eat me at any time. And it's also the reason I always sit in the back row, even when I'm solo, at the multiplex. I need to be able to take in the whole thing, with minimal eye movement/scanning, or I'll slowly be driven nuts over two hours. Based on numbers/measurements and some mockups, I would consider 43", but that would be the absolute top. But the 40" models I saw at the store last night (I took my tape measure and stood 8-12 feet away) seemed just fine. Last edited by psmith2.0 : 2021-01-17 at 12:23. |
Sneaky Punk
|
I get it, I don't have any desire for one of those 50+" sets either. I have a 43" LG, and it's more than big enough for my space, if anything it's huge. While I was growing up we had a 20 something inch TV, so anything more than that was huge. My uncle had a 50" projector TV, that was just a monster to us.
|
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
Yeah. I think those sizing/distance formulas skew toward the bigger end of things. Makes sense, but it’s not for everyone.
Finally figured out Imgur (since Dropbox seems to no longer host images for posting here). Anyway, this is to-scale to show you kinda what I'm looking at (literally). The top RCA 26" is my current TV and those are the dimensions. The actual screen size is 22.625" wide x 12.75" tall. It has huge, nearly 2" bezels, and that thicker bottom bezel is because it's housing the front-firing speaker across the bottom...it looks like an iMac in this drawing. The two 40" and 43" models are dimensions from the VIZIO models I'm looking at, but other brands are close. Basing these on the half-inch bezels I measured in the store last night, so just subtract one inch from those overall dimensions of the TV itself to get the actual screen size: - 34.5" x 19.5" on the 40" - 37.25" x 21.375" on the 43" The right of all that is the screen size comparisons between the three. As you can see, even the 40" is quite a step up, in sheer screen viewing size. The diagonal on the RCA 26" is around 25.5" and the two VIZIOs are about half-an-inch less than the model screen size (39.5" and 42.5" respectively according to Best Buy and Walmart's websites...they always round up). Just going from the 26" to the 40" gives me right at 14" more of horizontal actual viewable screen, and just under 7" of vertical extra screen). The 43" is just under 3" and 2", respectively, additional screen in those same directions. And the sort of difference between the existing 26" and the 40", to scale. This screen-grab from an episode dropped proportionally into both 16:9 screen areas perfectly... PS - Could Imgur be more clunky and non-intuitive? What a long-way-around-the-bend slog. Last edited by psmith2.0 : 2021-01-17 at 22:18. |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
Mounting matters. I put a Samsung frame TV in our reno’d space because it fit the decor, and honestly it looks far smaller than other TVs of the same size because it mounts flush to the wall. It’s got a very slick wall bracket that is easy to hang and adjust, and only takes one wire to carry both signal and power. It can display art of your choosing throughout the day when not in TV mode and the App ecosystem works well. It costs more, but there are often sales, and honestly, it’s sort worth some extra money if you want something to disappear into the decor.
|
Sneaky Punk
|
It does depend on mounting and position for sure. I have my TV on a stand with an integrated VESA mount. Due to space I have the TV backing a window. I like that stand, since it works well with my tower speakers, TV, AV receiver, 5 Disk CD player (very old school I know), Mac Mini, and Blu-ray player (an Xbox One).
|
Veteran Member
|
Quote:
My parents recently upgraded from a 46 to a 65 thinking that would be massive. Within a year their regret is that they did not get a 75 which is what their lounge could handle. *chin is not the right word, but for Mac peeps they get the drift. I had a 40" next to a newer 46" and they were physically the same size Angels bleed from the tainted touch of my caress |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
pscates2.0,
The Samsung frame I mentioned comes in at 38" x 21.86", but I guarantee you, that it will have less "presence" in the room than either of the 40 or 43" options you're looking at if you intend to wall mount it. If not, there are better TV's for the money. But the zero clearance wall mount makes a huge difference here, I think frame choice does as well. (I have the white frame) and none of my friends/family who see it at first can believe that it's a 65" TV, they all think it's smaller... and just to re-iterate, it's not even the bezel thickness that makes the difference, it's the integrated wall mount that snugs it up tight to the wall. There's a lot of thin TV's that hang 2-3" off the wall after you've accounted for the bracket, some even more, and it ruins the "thin factor." Again, it's an expensive option, but often the previous year's model is on sale for a healthy savings. ......................................... |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
For console mount at your size, you could probably find a used 1080P 42" Panasonic plasma for less than $100 - a few weeks ago I saw a 42" listed as low as $30, though I didn't buy it. Panasonic's upper mid panels and Pioneer's old Kuro's will still look better (better contrast and more natural reproduction) on films and fast action than almost any LCD. I have a 12 year old set that still looks better on films than just about any TV I've seen. Heavy bastard, and not really thin either, but gorgeous display.
......................................... |
Ninja Editor
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
|
For the price difference, I'd go with the 4k option. It might not make a huge difference for TVing, but I've hooked my laptop up to my TV and its 1080p resolution is a large part of why I made no attempt to keep things set up that way.
When I was a kid, people who did wrong were punished, restricted, and forbidden. Now, when someone does wrong, all of the rest of us are punished, restricted, and forbidden... and the one who did the wrong is counselled and "understood" and fed ice cream. |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
Brightness is not usually the issue with TVs, blackness is. It gets plenty bright for movies, but the TV requires set-up out of the box, it's not a particularly great calibration, but you can get it to a good place. Just to put into perspective, one of the first things I did (as with all my displays) is lower the brightness and the backlight settings.
......................................... |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
I've settled/zeroed in on the 40" 4K model. Finding one locally is proving to be a chore. The 40" 1080 and the 43" 4K seem to be at several Walmarts and Best Buy in the Chattanooga region. I'll probably just order it and wait. I was hoping to snag one tomorrow afternoon and have it for the weekend, but it'll show up next week if I order tomorrow or Saturday.
For the mockups I've done (including that 35.5" x 20.5" cardboard cutout), the in-store comparisons on size/distance, etc. I know the 40" will be fine for me, especially being such a leap up from the heavily-bezeled 26". But I do think the 4K would be worth the $30 jump, and that I might appreciate that a year from now? Does all that sound good? I'm not looking to go nuts, I'm just looking for a decent upgrade and something I can enjoy for a good while with my less-than-typical viewing (I'm looking at a $228 outlay). Actually, I'm really not looking at much of anything, as it's a joint birthday thing. And while I was given a higher cap, I don't see the need to max that out. If I lived on my TV, maybe I'd do the 43"...but it's going to require some moving/reconfiguring. The 40" just plops right down where my current one is, at 14" larger. Question: for those of you who have LCD TVs on a stand (vs. wall-mounted) do you do anything to secure them to the platform/table/entertainment center they're sitting on, or are they bottom-heavy and stable enough? My current TV, while smaller, is centrally-mounted (like an iMac) and quite bottom/chin-heavy, so even when I put my hands on the top and try to rock it, nothing really happens. I've got a cat, but he's never once hopped up (to my knowledge) and messed with it. This larger, thinner TV I'm going to, with two separate feet spread out to about a 32" span, seems like it might be a topple-risk? Has anyone ever drilled a couple of holes in the feet of your TV (are they typically metal or plastic?) and screwed the TV down to the platform it's on, just to secure it and prevent a topple/fall? I just don't want to come home and find the TV - and possibly Jasper underneath it - lying on the floor. I'm going to figure out a way to prevent that and if I can just screw/anchor the feet to the surface, that would work. Even if I don't drill a hole in the feet, maybe some sort of hold-down approach? But I'd like it to work in both directions, front and back. Would be neat if the feet came with holes already in them. Last edited by psmith2.0 : 2021-01-21 at 22:18. |
Posting Rules | Navigation |
|
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Macbook to AppleTV - Can I get 1920 x 1080 resolution? | steve77uk | Genius Bar | 4 | 2007-09-09 15:28 |