gianmarco said:I got one several months ago from Sam's. It's a Vizio 4k that I was able to get for about $1600. It seems that's the price now which isn't bad at all. You can get the non-4k version for about $1000.
I think the picture quality is excellent and the smart TV interface is really good and works flawlessly and quickly. That's always been a pet peeve of mine with other TVs . I have a 54 in Vizio sound bar hooked up to it and they integrate nicely.
Here is the link at Sam's but you can obviously get elsewhere.
Fwiw, I have a Sony and two Sharps in the house and I think this Vizio is the best of the TVs I have (the others are 2-5 years old).
http://m.samsclub.com/ip/70-uhd-smartcast/prod20132395?pid=_CSE_Google_PLA_4K_Ultra_HD_TVs&source=ifpla&CAWELAID=730010300000766174&adid=22222222628000044919&veh=sem
ETA--This is the actual TV I got
Keep telling yourself size does not matter.Never understood why someone needs a TV this big
Partly depends on viewing distance. If five feet away, probably not.Never understood why someone needs a TV this big
And I'll add, people watch waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much TV.Never understood why someone needs a TV this big
Noted. Addition starting this week and need future tech for it in the next couple months.James Daulton said:The undisputed price/performance winner.
http://www.vizio.com/tvs/pseries/p65c1.html
Has tons of future tech that will make this tv remain fantastic for years to come.
The 4k I linked has a lot of other features that make its picture superb. Not quite on par with OLED, but not far off.Another vote here for Vizio & Sams. I would save the $$$ on the 4k. There is barely any 4k content available.
Now there isn't but that can change in a relatively short period of time. I agree if only a buying a smaller TV for a few hundred it's not worth doubling the cost. But if he's buying a 70 inch television, as long as it's not prohibitive, then the extra few hundred is probably worth it at this point unless he wants to potentially replace the set in 2-3 years.Another vote here for Vizio & Sams. I would save the $$$ on the 4k. There is barely any 4k content available.
The Vizio P series I linked is brand new (out since March I think). While 4k streamed from Netflix and other sources does look fantastic, the tv's real secret is High Dynamic Range, Ultra Color Spectrum, and Dolby Vision. Plus it's incredibly bright with great contrast. If you're in the market for a tv, I highly recommend you go into a Best Buy and they usually have these sets in their Magnolia section. You'll be able to see the Vizio P series next to OLED and see how close they are.I posted in a similar thread earlier in the summer, I ended up with a Vizio 60in. I recall people in there talking about the 4k, and saying the cheaper 4k sets are bs. Like, if your going to go for the 4k you need a higher end one. I will have to go look for it.
Do you complain about the size of the screen when you go to a movie theater?Never understood why someone needs a TV this big
Buy an Epson HD projector for $900Sinrman said:Hoping the pool will keep eyes out while I search for a reasonably-priced 70+" TV. Price range? Hard to say, as I haven't decided yet whether I want to make the plunge into a 4k TV or not. Not looking to spend $3k+, how's that?
And another vote!Another vote here for Vizio & Sams. I would save the $$$ on the 4k. There is barely any 4k content available.
People are generally sitting too far from their TV's. For example, a 65" TV should not be viewed from more than 10 feet away.Here's the thing with the size....if you can't comfortably take in the entire picture while watching a movie...the screen is either too big or you're sitting too close. At 70 inches, the comfortable viewing distance is farther away then any reasonable person really needs it to be. Screens in a movie theater SUCK from the first 10-13 rows...you can't see it!
From the middle on back, it's far more comfortable and more than adequate. But I don't have 80 people in my living room watching my TV. I have what...8 or so, on special occasions, and no more than 2 or 3 normally? SO why not buy a TV half the size and sit at half the distance? I get a better picture for far less money that way.
Again...I have no idea why folks feel a need to buy a TV this frigging big for their home. Just move the couch closer!
And who decided this optimum viewing distance?People are generally sitting too far from their TV's. For example, a 65" TV should not be viewed from more than 10 feet away.
Apparently you are. You said the comfortable viewing distance is farther away than a reasonable person needs it to be. I guess I'll continue to be unreasonably uncomfortable watching my TV.And who decided this optimum viewing distance?
(The TV manufacturers???????)
People sat 15 feet away watching 24 inch TVs for decades.Apparently you are. You said the comfortable viewing distance is farther away than a reasonable person needs it to be. I guess I'll continue to be unreasonably uncomfortable watching my TV.
People sat 15 feet away from a 24 inch TV because it was prohibitively expensive and space-eating to get a 70" tube TV. If someone enjoys a 70" television enough to buy one, what the #### is your problem with him buying it?People sat 15 feet away watching 24 inch TVs for decades.
Now, we have TV's that deliver crystal clear HD where, unless you're blind, you could make out virtually every detail on the screen from 15 feet away, but according to whoever has re-calculated the optimum viewing size, that screen NOW has to be 60 inches?
I'm sitting in my bedroom right now, nearly 20 feet away from my 42 inch HD TV and you know what? The picture is great and I don't feel like I'm missing a single thing.
Like 3000 square foot homes for families with 2 kids, or 13 MPG suburbans for soccer moms who NEVER carry or haul any real weight and rarely carry more then 3 passengers...it's overkill and dumb. I can find a heck of a lot better things to spend $4000 on and maintain that anyone willing to do so has more money than sense.
And who made the chart?
No such thing!And who made the chart?
Henry, I honestly couldn't care less how someone spends their money. I just don't get it, and the "chart" is absurd. TV's in general are MUCH larger than they need to be.
And food tastes better than it needs to. And the internet is faster than it needs to be...And who made the chart?
Henry, I honestly couldn't care less how someone spends their money. I just don't get it, and the "chart" is absurd. TV's in general are MUCH larger than they need to be.
Maybe stop insulting people over it, then.And who made the chart?
Henry, I honestly couldn't care less how someone spends their money. I just don't get it, and the "chart" is absurd. TV's in general are MUCH larger than they need to be.
Why not read the article so you can understand the formulas instead of complaining about other peoples preferences just becuase they don't match your own tastes?And who made the chart?
Henry, I honestly couldn't care less how someone spends their money. I just don't get it, and the "chart" is absurd. TV's in general are MUCH larger than they need to be.