DEEKAYPEE8569
Well-Known Member
Don't know much about 'em.
Are they worth the investment?
Are they worth the investment?
2160p Flat-Screen TV's
- Thread starter DEEKAYPEE8569
- Start date
kwillia
n/a
You have to be more specific if you want serious opinions. Brand, size, smart/not, etc. is key and if you are looking for a simple (dumb) mid-size flat HD then it is hardly an investment these days... I just picked up a 45" LG HD for $250 for my mom.
Last edited:
DEEKAYPEE8569
Well-Known Member
Know what? I'll 'google it' and see what there is to see. I just saw 2160p; didn't know that existed. Just researching; no immediate plans to invest.
kwillia
n/a
We have a 65" 2160p and I can tell you the picture quality is spectacular, but my original line of questioning stands and was put out there because you have to personally define what you are looking for in a TV and do you even need to buy one now.
We went with 2160p SMART because we were actually in the market for it after considerable research. If you just need a nice TV and are concerned with cost you can get a standard HD and have a great picture without the "investment".
DEEKAYPEE8569
Well-Known Member
I have a 40 in. 1080P HD; and it still works; and works very well with DISH Network, so I don't need a 2160p.
I guess the fact that we have DISH would play a major role in the decision; if DISH won't work on a 2160p TV, then no, the investment won't/wouldn't be worth it.
glhs837
Power with Control
Oh, you mean whats more commonly called Ultra High Definition, or UHD, AKA 4K resolution? Contents picking up, nobody needs one now, but if I were in the market now, I would go that way because that's the way content is going to go from here forward. If you keep a TV (or display) longer than say two years, I think it makes sense. Were I buying today, I think Vizio is sort of hitting the sweet spot, for me anyway, between cost and performance. the new for 2016 M-series is a pretty good deal.
DEEKAYPEE8569
Well-Known Member
"4K content is also slowly becoming available via cable and satellite (DISH), which requires renting or purchasing a new cable box or satellite dish."
dish.com - http://www.dish.com/dig/technology/...ed-to-know-about-this-emerging-tv-technology/
:shrug:
like I said, I don't need a 2160p/4k TV. I have a sneaking suspicion that the additional charges from Dish Network for the signal upgrade would be just as high as cable TV rates. Too high a price to pay just for the UHD experience IMO.
dish.com - http://www.dish.com/dig/technology/...ed-to-know-about-this-emerging-tv-technology/
:shrug:
like I said, I don't need a 2160p/4k TV. I have a sneaking suspicion that the additional charges from Dish Network for the signal upgrade would be just as high as cable TV rates. Too high a price to pay just for the UHD experience IMO.
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
It will be cheaper just to buy a 1080 TV now and then down the road when the 4k signal is common buy one for probably $250 then.
Who imagined an 1080HD TV 55 inches would be $300 when they were paying $2500 for them 10 years ago?
Who imagined an 1080HD TV 55 inches would be $300 when they were paying $2500 for them 10 years ago?
GWguy
*
One reason for upgrading is the ability of the screen to "catch up" to the motion. Older tvs, even if 1080p, may exhibit a staggering of the image, or smear, as it moves. I happen to be sensitive to that, others not so much. The new tvs, in addition to having higher resolutions also have faster screen processors minimizing the motion smear.
You said the picture quality currently was good, so you probably don't notice it, so this becomes a moot issue.
You said the picture quality currently was good, so you probably don't notice it, so this becomes a moot issue.
glhs837
Power with Control
That was my point about two years. I think that's about how far out 4K being the most common format really is.