The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Kangal For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2015-01-03
, 14:14
|
|
Posts: 7,075 |
Thanked: 9,073 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Moon! It's not the East or the West side... it's the Dark Side
|
#62
|
![]() |
2015-01-04
, 10:02
|
|
Posts: 217 |
Thanked: 89 times |
Joined on Dec 2013
@ Indonesia, Banyuwangi
|
#63
|
The Following User Says Thank You to irulestar For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2015-01-04
, 11:02
|
|
Posts: 6,450 |
Thanked: 20,983 times |
Joined on Sep 2012
@ UK
|
#64
|
![]() |
2015-01-04
, 11:16
|
|
Posts: 7,075 |
Thanked: 9,073 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Moon! It's not the East or the West side... it's the Dark Side
|
#65
|
Same here. Shame it was an early version with a built-in DVB tuner and was made obsolete when the whole country switched to digital. What an irony. I replaced it with a modern LCD model and observed two thing: 1) HDTV is hugely overhyped. You need the screen the size of your entire living room wall (or the eyes of a hawk) to notice any difference. 2) Usability went downhill. When my old TV was off, pressing 5 on the remote switched it back on and switched to channel 5. My new TV from the same producer does not work like that, I need to turn it on first, wait a bit, and only then can I switch fhe channel.
![]() |
2015-01-04
, 12:26
|
|
Posts: 956 |
Thanked: 2,628 times |
Joined on Nov 2011
|
#66
|
![]() |
2015-01-04
, 12:35
|
|
Posts: 7,075 |
Thanked: 9,073 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Moon! It's not the East or the West side... it's the Dark Side
|
#67
|
Dave, he was talking about HD being useless, not UHD
UHD is really pointless below 70". Combined with the fact that there is almost zero content it's just money thrown out the window for the next 5 to 10 years.
Thats why I got a 65" 1080p TV in December. My Dad's 65" UHD TV looks worse, as it needs to upscale all content. He got it 1 week before I got mine and he didn't listen to my advice not getting an UHD. Marketing worked at it's best.
![]() |
2015-01-04
, 12:42
|
|
Posts: 956 |
Thanked: 2,628 times |
Joined on Nov 2011
|
#68
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Morpog For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2015-01-04
, 12:47
|
|
Posts: 7,075 |
Thanked: 9,073 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Moon! It's not the East or the West side... it's the Dark Side
|
#69
|
It is pointless, unless you sit 1m away if less than 65".
Remember the megapixel race of digital cameras?
We might see a SONY Xperia Z4 at CES. Supposed to be a Z3 with a S810 SoC and perhaps a 1440p display.
We might even wee the rumored HTC One (M9), also supposed to have the S810 but is curiously sticking to the 1080p display. That should mean crazy battery life. If only HTC decides to make the device thinner (<9mm) and shave off those crazy bezels.
PS I finally bought the Kogan TV. I paid late Febuary 2014, was promised it would arrive in 4 weeks. It didn't arrive until Mid May, about 2.5 - 3 months later. It was great but had MAJOR problems. A lot of (and uneven) light bleeding in dark scenes. Very very low contrast (despite the spec sheet). 3D glasses wouldn't pair half the time. A lot of post-processing artifacts and crazy motion blur. Also a slow HDMI connector which was inducing lag on consoles. That was $1,250 in total, and a refund was applied for in May and issued/returned in June (at a loss of ~$90).
I ended up buying an LG 55LB6500 instead. Its 120Hz like the Kogan, but induces no artifacts or lag when watching sports or playing on the console. Its IPS display too. It also has light-bleeding, lot's to be honest, but its more uniform so its harder to notice in scenes. Brightness is good, contrast is great... thus HD quality is much better. 3D actually works (and passive). On top of this, the webOS user interface is quite great... and better than the "Android" implementation of the Kogan. Purchased it brand new with 5 year warranty. Was ~$1,500 but I snagged it for $1,100.... cheaper and better than the Kogan TV.
I'm flattered