4 ms·

Someone in a previous thread mentioned Sceptre TVs. They are dumb. Incredibly low priced but quality models available (55" 4k HDR HDMI 2.0 for $300) [1]. They h

Someone in a previous thread mentioned Sceptre TVs. They are dumb. Incredibly low priced but quality models available (55" 4k HDR HDMI 2.0 for $300) [1]. They have 30yrs experience. Seems a good company. Have high-end models too. [1] https://www.sceptre.com/TV/4K-UHD-TV/U550CV-UMRD-55-4K-UHD-TV-product1174category1category73.html https://www.sceptre.com/TV/4K-UHD-TV/U550CV-UMRD-55-4K-UHD-T... Anybody here have one?

adanto6840 6y ago
I do. 75" version. Was budget price, decent picture. Only gripe is that it's slow to turn on versus my other TVs. Is otherwise solid, though isn't used often, but have had it for ~2-3 years now I believe and no major complaints.
lostcolony 6y ago
I had one ~eight years ago. It worked fine. Not a cinophile though, so can't really comment on anything there. Am a gamer; no noticeable smearing and no detectable input lag greater than any other TV. We ended up getting rid of it after a move caused it to get damaged. Only thing really of note I can remember was it was fairly heavy, but I never compared it against other TVs being sold around that time so can't say it was due to the brand.
magicalhippo 6y ago
> quality models They advertise the display as HDR but the specs say its brightness is a quite poor 280cd/m^2. A proper HDR TV should have quite a bit higher brightness. I consider HDR to be a far greater improvement in visuals compared to 4k, and something which made my jaw drop the first time I saw it at home watching The Reverend on my Samsung top-end model.
- DiabloD3 6y ago
  You cant even get qualified as HDR below 400, and 400 is already ... a bit meaningless. Hollywood and TV authors content for 1000, and theres a mighty disconnect between these first few generations and what the content requires. To make this worse, my several year old U2414Hs can reach 280 at 100%. Those are inexpensive, standard, 1080p IPS office monitors, that have rather good color consistency for being low $2xx each... and also like 5 years old.
  - contravariant 6y ago
    I reckon contrast is more important than peak brightness. The eye is good at adjusting to brightness, and 1000 nits just seems overkill. You might need that much if the TV is surrounded by a white wall directly lit by the sun, but in normal indoor lighting conditions it just seems excessive.
    - magicalhippo 6y ago
      Everything within reason of course, but even in a batcave the increased brightness of a proper HDR display is quite noticeable.
      - contravariant 6y ago
        It might be noticeable, but as someone who has trouble dialling down the brightness far enough to make them comfortable to look at, I'm not sure if I'd want it to be that bright. That might just be a personal preference though, obviously.
bitwize 6y ago
The panels, I understand, are inferior to name-brand TVs. Poorer viewing angle, poorer color reproduction, and I thought I heard they have some funky pixel arrangement (not pentile, but similar) which means that 3840x2160 isn't really 3840x2160.
dx87 6y ago
I used to have one, it lasted ~5 years before the display stopped working due to some sort of internal electronics failure. IIRC, the reason they're cheap is because they're off-brand Samsung TVs that failed QA testing.
livueta 6y ago
I've got one - an older 1080, though. Got it for $50 when my roommate at the time had to return to China on short notice and had to get rid of most of his stuff. It's fine. Takes a while to turn on but otherwise just works. I'm not super-discriminating about display quality, but nothing about the display has ever bothered me.
dzonga 6y ago
I have one of these as my main tv's. yeah brightness is kinda low. but now complains it works great for watching tv, playing xbox here and there. and it was cheap af.

adanto6840 6y ago

I do. 75" version. Was budget price, decent picture. Only gripe is that it's slow to turn on versus my other TVs. Is otherwise solid, though isn't used often, but have had it for ~2-3 years now I believe and no major complaints.

lostcolony 6y ago

I had one ~eight years ago. It worked fine. Not a cinophile though, so can't really comment on anything there. Am a gamer; no noticeable smearing and no detectable input lag greater than any other TV. We ended up getting rid of it after a move caused it to get damaged. Only thing really of note I can remember was it was fairly heavy, but I never compared it against other TVs being sold around that time so can't say it was due to the brand.

magicalhippo 6y ago

> quality models They advertise the display as HDR but the specs say its brightness is a quite poor 280cd/m^2. A proper HDR TV should have quite a bit higher brightness. I consider HDR to be a far greater improvement in visuals compared to 4k, and something which made my jaw drop the first time I saw it at home watching The Reverend on my Samsung top-end model.

DiabloD3 6y ago
You cant even get qualified as HDR below 400, and 400 is already ... a bit meaningless. Hollywood and TV authors content for 1000, and theres a mighty disconnect between these first few generations and what the content requires. To make this worse, my several year old U2414Hs can reach 280 at 100%. Those are inexpensive, standard, 1080p IPS office monitors, that have rather good color consistency for being low $2xx each... and also like 5 years old.
- contravariant 6y ago
  I reckon contrast is more important than peak brightness. The eye is good at adjusting to brightness, and 1000 nits just seems overkill. You might need that much if the TV is surrounded by a white wall directly lit by the sun, but in normal indoor lighting conditions it just seems excessive.
  - magicalhippo 6y ago
    Everything within reason of course, but even in a batcave the increased brightness of a proper HDR display is quite noticeable.
    - contravariant 6y ago
      It might be noticeable, but as someone who has trouble dialling down the brightness far enough to make them comfortable to look at, I'm not sure if I'd want it to be that bright. That might just be a personal preference though, obviously.

bitwize 6y ago

The panels, I understand, are inferior to name-brand TVs. Poorer viewing angle, poorer color reproduction, and I thought I heard they have some funky pixel arrangement (not pentile, but similar) which means that 3840x2160 isn't really 3840x2160.

dx87 6y ago

I used to have one, it lasted ~5 years before the display stopped working due to some sort of internal electronics failure. IIRC, the reason they're cheap is because they're off-brand Samsung TVs that failed QA testing.

livueta 6y ago

I've got one - an older 1080, though. Got it for $50 when my roommate at the time had to return to China on short notice and had to get rid of most of his stuff. It's fine. Takes a while to turn on but otherwise just works. I'm not super-discriminating about display quality, but nothing about the display has ever bothered me.

dzonga 6y ago

I have one of these as my main tv's. yeah brightness is kinda low. but now complains it works great for watching tv, playing xbox here and there. and it was cheap af.