Do you still use 1080P TV? Why haven't you upgraded to 4K?

8k-3D wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I don’t need a TV for that.

Neither do I. Is your approach slam-bam-later-ma'am ... it's all about you? You should learn how to romance a woman, and learn when she is ready, and when she is done. The majority of guys are clueless.

I thought we were just talking about cuddling, with a woman we’ve presumably romanced long enough for her to agree to marry until death.

It reads like your wife wouldn’t cuddle up with you, but for that good home theater setup, as if the big screen is compensating for something else.

Harambe wrote:

8k-3D wrote:

Neither do I. Is your approach slam-bam-later-ma'am ... it's all about you? You should learn how to romance a woman, and learn when she is ready, and when she is done. The majority of guys are clueless.

Fellas, does your wife need to be hypnotized by mass media before getting intimate?

Well you would know what it’s like to be hypnotized by mass media.

Harambe wrote:

I'm just pointing out the resolution-obsession has reached a comical pinnacle where we are now well beyond what the eye can discern from reasonable viewing distances.

I was happy with the leap from NTSC and PAL and VHS to DVD quality. With the next step to HD, why would anyone want more?

The most disappointing thing for me was that digital didn’t solve some analog standards incompatibilities (PAL vs. NTSC), but just digitized them, and sometimes created weird artefacts when converting between all the differing standards (like solving different frame rates of film versus PAL versus NTSC) and conversions between interlaced versus non-interlaced at any step in the process. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, don’t research it, because once you find out, you will always see the artefacts.

Yeah, like someone else said, it works just fine, and the picture is way better than anything I grew up with, so I will keep it until it breaks.

We don't watch much "television" these days, but we DO watch things from Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+, and HBO Max on it.

Flagpole wrote:

Yeah, like someone else said, it works just fine, and the picture is way better than anything I grew up with, so I will keep it until it breaks.

We don't watch much "television" these days, but we DO watch things from Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+, and HBO Max on it.

Same here... I "cut the cord" years ago.

Will never go back.

In fact, I had "cable TV "for a few years, because it was bundled free with my internet, and didn't even hook up the equipment.

I can stream pretty much everything I want to see.

In 1993, I bought a 21” Hitachi which lasted me 17 years before I replaced it. As it was analog, it started losing colors unless I banged on it from the top or the side.

I replaced that with a 26” 16:9 format flat screen (I think it is HD ready or something like that) and it is 11 years old and counting.

That is now my “second” TV. My main TV is about 9 years old, as that is when we replaced our massive analog tube TV. It’s a whopping 39” HDTV with Blu-Ray and an earth shattering 2.1 speaker setup. The small bookshelf speakers are already off the floor. The smaller sizes makes it more cozy for cuddling, something that you might not find important.

I do not use it, as you need to have the appropriate equipment that will support this resolution. Accordingly, it is necessary to spend money to buy a new monitor or TV, but why, if the old one works fine as it is. Similarly in other areas, for example, in my greenhouse I have a terra-bloom https://terra-bloom.com/ fan, time-proven device, although there is a newer, but why spend money if this works fine.

4K is pointless if you don't have a large TV. The average person can't tell the different between 1080 and 4K unless they are sitting less than 3 feet away, or the TV is over about 60+" inches. If your TV is smaller than and you don't sit right in front of it, you probably won't be able to tell the difference. Add to that the fact that the vast majority of content, particularly streaming content, is not 4K anyways.

In fact they have found that HDR (High Dynamic Range) makes a MUCH larger impact on perception of image quality than 4K vs 1080. (as does the refresh rate).

And anyone that wants an 8K TV is an idiot. The size of TV an average person needs to be able to tell the difference from 4K to 8K is literally around 280 inches. (Meaning only the Samsung "Wall" fits the bill...at a cool twenty thousand dollars)

M.C. Confusing wrote:

And anyone that wants an 8K TV is an idiot. The size of TV an average person needs to be able to tell the difference from 4K to 8K is literally around 280 inches.

Some people have the money to afford the best. Everyone is not a pauper like you. Do you buy $200 running shoes or the $30 pair you can get at Walmart?

8k-3D wrote:

M.C. Confusing wrote:

And anyone that wants an 8K TV is an idiot. The size of TV an average person needs to be able to tell the difference from 4K to 8K is literally around 280 inches.

Some people have the money to afford the best. Everyone is not a pauper like you. Do you buy $200 running shoes or the $30 pair you can get at Walmart?

The $200 running shoes are materially better than $30 shoes, usually in terms of durability and weight.

If the 8K TV comes with good contrast, HDR, fast refresh rates, then sure, it's great. But it's not materially better than a 4K TV with the same unless you're sitting 3 feet from it.

This is a biological limitation.

However, buying the best makes people feel good! That has value!

rekrunner wrote:

The smaller sizes makes it more cozy for cuddling, something that you might not find important.

I am sorry you have a smaller size one. You have no clue about women.

Harambe wrote:

8k-3D wrote:

Some people have the money to afford the best. Everyone is not a pauper like you. Do you buy $200 running shoes or the $30 pair you can get at Walmart?

The $200 running shoes are materially better than $30 shoes, usually in terms of durability and weight.

That has value!

You just confirmed my point. You buy the best you can afford when you can afford it. It is long past time for you to stop whining about what people who can afford something spend their money on. . . . The only reason I can tell you your anger is that you have limited money spending options. That is your problem. I don't have that problem, but I choose to change TV setups once every 10-15 years. I could buy an 8k setup now, but chose to wait . . . and that drives you to into constant whining about.

Ernest wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Yeah, like someone else said, it works just fine, and the picture is way better than anything I grew up with, so I will keep it until it breaks.

We don't watch much "television" these days, but we DO watch things from Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+, and HBO Max on it.

Same here... I "cut the cord" years ago.

Will never go back.

In fact, I had "cable TV "for a few years, because it was bundled free with my internet, and didn't even hook up the equipment.

I can stream pretty much everything I want to see.

You say that as if it's some kind of choice you're making. Most TV shows are only available on streaming services.

Hardloper wrote:

Ernest wrote:

Same here... I "cut the cord" years ago.

Will never go back.

In fact, I had "cable TV "for a few years, because it was bundled free with my internet, and didn't even hook up the equipment.

I can stream pretty much everything I want to see.

You say that as if it's some kind of choice you're making. Most TV shows are only available on streaming services.

Aren't we all making choices?

My choice is to not buy and use traditional "cable tv" - that is what is meant by cord-cutting here.

Yes most broadcast TV shows are also available streaming, Hulu, Peacock, etc. Some are only available (legally) on streaming services such as Apple TV, Disney, Amazon...

The operative phrase; "I can stream pretty much everything I want to see"

Ernest wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

You say that as if it's some kind of choice you're making. Most TV shows are only available on streaming services.

Aren't we all making choices?

My choice is to not buy and use traditional "cable tv" - that is what is meant by cord-cutting here.

Yes most broadcast TV shows are also available streaming, Hulu, Peacock, etc. Some are only available (legally) on streaming services such as Apple TV, Disney, Amazon...

The operative phrase; "I can stream pretty much everything I want to see"

You can also see current shows on their respective broadcasting company website, CBS.com for example.

8k-3D wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The smaller sizes makes it more cozy for cuddling, something that you might not find important.

I am sorry you have a smaller size one. You have no clue about women.

Not getting any clues about the path to pleasing women by buying a bigger TV screen. That just seems like it would attract the wrong kind of material woman. If that works for you, then great.

In my case, when we were in the market for a large screen TV, I was choosing between a 46” and a 42” TV, and it was my wife who said that 46” was too big. Finally, the 42” was not in stock, so we ended up buying a 39”, and my wife was more than satisfied with the size. Neither of us are sorry.

Space was not a problem, as we have a large enough space for the larger TVs, and a large enough room.

Money was no object, as by large coincidence, as a 20-year gift, my work was offering me for free, a 54” TV, with a 5.1 surround sound and high end tower speakers. I opted instead for buying the smaller TV, and getting the “computer” option, which included the 15” Macbook Pro with Retina display that I am currently posting this on.

Recently, my wife wanted to replace it with a 56” Samsung Frame (seems overpriced for the quality to me), so the TV would be art when we are not watching it. It was another woman, my daughter, who said don’t do it, but choose to save the planet instead.

Good luck cuddling with woman who only want you for your TV.

8k-3D wrote:

You just confirmed my point. You buy the best you can afford when you can afford it. It is long past time for you to stop whining about what people who can afford something spend their money on. . . . The only reason I can tell you your anger is that you have limited money spending options. That is your problem. I don't have that problem, but I choose to change TV setups once every 10-15 years. I could buy an 8k setup now, but chose to wait . . . and that drives you to into constant whining about.

The question isn’t “the best you can afford”, but if bigger and more expensive is actually better. I look for best value for money, and buy what I actually want.

I was pleased to find a complete setup including a Blu-Ray player, and a PC-card digital cable converter, for just under 1000 Euros, at a clearance sale. I could afford the double or triple (and as I said, could have gotten much bigger/better for free by large coincidence), but decided that simply spending more would not bring better value.

I’m glad I didn’t spend more, because the family simply doesn’t watch TV like we used to, even just 10 years ago.

rekrunner wrote:

kore wrote:

Do you still use 1080P TV? Why haven't you upgraded to 4K?

When I switched from tubes to flat screens, I upgraded two TVs w/HD and a BluRay player, including one with a built-in amp and external bookshelf stereo speakers.

Despite the upgrades, including Digital HD TV over cable with 120 channels for free, that is about the time we generally stopped watching TV and DVDs/Blu-Rays.

Kids watch streaming on an iPad or a laptop, or sometimes their iPhone. 720p is more than ample.

Wife wants something like the “Samsung Frame” so we can hang it on a wall like a picture.

I really don't understand how for some a 42 inch TV is not big enough while some are watching a tablet or phone.

I concentrate more on finding something good to watch rather than wasting money and time on the latest upgrade which realistically look barely any different especially considering a lot of TV is transmitted at poor quality.

I especially love those adverts demonstrating how great the new TV looks erm it looks great on your current TV. I like to get quality things but not only if what I have is broken or really unusable. If you've got that much spare money get an Aston Martin and get out there not wallowing in nerdy tech.

kore wrote:

Do you still use 1080P TV? Why haven't you upgraded to 4K?

I have (3) 1080p, (2) 4k TVs and 102" 1080p projector. I have 75" 4K 240FR TV, but the one I watch most often is a 50" 1080p. I absolutely no problem with 1080p especially with 120 frame rate and when you are sitting no more than 8 feet away. No streaming issues with any of my 1080p but 75" 4K 240FR super TV can't stream more than 15 minutes with out buffering. The moral of this story is the best in not always better.