Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Samsung Electronics UN49MU8000 49-Inch 4K Ultra HD Smart LED TV (2017 Model)
49-Inch $897.99 + $200
55-Inch $1,097.99 + $500
65-Inch $1,597.99 + $1200
75-Inch $2,797.99 + $1000
82-Inch $3,797.99
For myself, I find it difficult to spend $500, $1200, $1000 for a few inches of television.
It's not just a few inches though because the measurement is diagonal the viewing area increase can be considerable. For instance 55 vs 65 inch the viewing area is 39% larger despite the 18% difference diagonally
First, the room is not designed for television viewing. You can plunk a toilet down in the middle of a kitchen and then ask what is the most frugal toilet, but it will STILL be out of place. I spent much of my career involved with movie theatres and know what is involved in proper viewing experiences. If you like the room, like sitting in it, and like watching TV, great. Just recognize that the room isn't designed for that activity.
i actually dont disagree with that. its clearly not the perfect television watching room. however, it is the one that makes the most sense in the home that i currently have. i recognize it but i didnt know that i would be expected to publicly admit it in this thread. so here you go, i admit it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea
Second, frugality vs. best bang for the buck. I held the faq for the usenet frugal group. Buying a big house because it is cheap might make sense financially if you plan to flip, but it is in no way "frugal." The big house will have commensurately higher taxes, insurance, utilities costs, and maintenance costs. Again, if you like a big house and got a bargain, great. That doesn't make it frugal, any more than it makes it pink.
i think we are starting to beat a dead horse here but i know everyone likes to hear themselves speak so go ahead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea
Third, buying 4K now is stupid. You would have more program material available if you bought a laser disc player.
so what should i buy? unfortunately, now is the time that i would like a tv to fill that space and i would like it to last me 5+ years. im open to suggestions. i said before that i dont need all the latest technology, size is more important than a lot of hot features.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea
To get a semblance of what might work and be acceptable in that room, my guess is that using a shadow box and a gain lenticular screen, along with ganged 3K lumen projectors would do the job. You can look online to see how you can split signal so that two or more projectors can output the same image, and then those images are laid one on top of another to increase brightness. A gain lenticular screen - think of the dull side of aluminum foil, embossed with tiny rows of pits that keep the bright image only within a narrow viewing angle. By doing all of the work myself and making my own screen, I could probably keep cost for something like I just described under $4K. My own system, with a ten foot diagonal screen and a single 3K projector was under $1K. I don't consider that frugal, but it is a great bang for the buck.
Placing your post here was an error. The people more likely to have knowledge tend to hang in the consumer electronics forum.
that sounds very interesting and probably really cool to do but i am not you. so that means i need to hire someone to do that for me.
i am happy that i placed my post here. i found you! the guy who is coming to set up my fancy projector setup.
For instance 55 vs 65 inch the viewing area is 39% larger despite the 18% difference diagonally
It's not so much the mathematics that confuses me, as it is the idea that television on a 82-Inch $3,797.99 screen is so much superior to television on a 49-Inch $897.99 screen.
55" - 65" diagonal is 18% larger
1,293 - 1,805 square inches is 39.7% larger in area
$1,097.99 - $1,597.99 is 45.5% larger price
It's not just a few inches though because the measurement is diagonal the viewing area increase can be considerable. For instance 55 vs 65 inch the viewing area is 39% larger despite the 18% difference diagonally
i popped into best buy this morning and focused on the difference between things like a 50 inch screen vs 75. like you point out, it is a substantial difference. the 75 inchers looked pretty large. i still feel like i will be happier if i go for the larger one that is reasonable.
i popped into best buy this morning and focused on the difference between things like a 50 inch screen vs 75. like you point out, it is a substantial difference. the 75 inchers looked pretty large. i still feel like i will be happier if i go for the larger one that is reasonable.
I don't know if this table helps, but you are paying a higher price per square foot above 65" television
But, it is true that a 75" television is well over twice the area of a 50" television.
i think it is interesting and appreciate your input but still i dont believe it will change my mind. clearly there is a premium once you go above a certain size. i generally dont like to pay premiums but in this case i feel i may be willing to pay a certain premium that i feel is reasonable. we watch a significant amount of tv and this tv would also be used for any viewing events with family/friends. so i think due to its importance, it may be an item worth a little splurging.
Don't let people dissuade you about 4K. It's not super new anymore and it's not analogous to the 3D drama from a few years back. If anything, it's more like the arguments about 720p versus 1080 ("why would anyone need 1080?!?....) from several years back. I think it will be hard to find a non-4K set before too long.
While I will admit that 4k programming isn't exactly commonplace, it is more frequently being required of content producers to shoot and deliver content in 4K. Netflix, for one. I'll also admit that after all the digital shenanigans it takes to bring a 4k picture to your house one could argue, "is it really 4K anymore?" but that's a different argument.
Don't let people dissuade you about 4K. It's not super new anymore and it's not analogous to the 3D drama from a few years back. If anything, it's more like the arguments about 720p versus 1080 ("why would anyone need 1080?!?....) from several years back. I think it will be hard to find a non-4K set before too long.
While I will admit that 4k programming isn't exactly commonplace, it is more frequently being required of content producers to shoot and deliver content in 4K. Netflix, for one. I'll also admit that after all the digital shenanigans it takes to bring a 4k picture to your house one could argue, "is it really 4K anymore?" but that's a different argument.
even if i didnt feel the need for 4k, it seems like every large tv has that
even if i didnt feel the need for 4k, it seems like every large tv has that
Slim chance but maybe look into big A/V companies serving the presentation or convention markets and see if they might be turning some older 1080 stock over?
I hope I did this right
Sams club 70" Visio
14.5 sqft, 70 inch, $79/sqft, $1148
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
