3 ms·
And wild to think that nowadays 43” is on the smaller side even for a non home theatre “living room” TV— the standard is much more around 55”.
by mikepurvis 2y ago
And wild to think that nowadays 43” is on the smaller side even for a non home theatre “living room” TV— the standard is much more around 55”.
- TylerE 2y agoSeems like every time I've bought one "standard" has moved up a size. My current is a 65", the one before that a 55", a 47" before that, and I think a 43 or 44 before that.
- mikepurvis 2y agoYup, I have a 65” 1080p panel that came with my house and looking at a 77” 4K OLED to replace it.
- Dylan16807 2y agoThe suggested viewing angle of 30-40 degrees has been stable, so it becomes a matter of how far away the seats can be to maintain that angle on a reasonable budget.
- te_chris 2y agoI actively waited for 47ish OLEDs to come out and drop in price before upgrading my tv as didn’t want or need anything bigger but definitely wanted OLED.
- mikepurvis 2y agoI’m getting bigger because I can but really going to OLED/HDR is a far bigger upgrade then either the size or the resolution bumps.
- TylerE 2y agoThe resolution bump is a pretty big deal too, paired with 4K Bluray discs and players. Only way to get HDR content that hasn't been webcompressed to shit.
- mikepurvis 2y agoIt’s true, and I did get a player and a handful of favourites to watch on it, so maybe in fooling myself that the hdr is more important than the resolution. I think the difference is that I’ve already watched 4K content on my computer but hdr is genuinely something new.