• LaggyKar@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    over 100% of the BT.2020 pro color space

    What does this mean? BT.2020 already requires pure monochromatic subpixels (which you’re not gonna get with LCD), so you can’t go beyond that unless you use 4+ subpixels (in which case the extra colors will just go unused, since HDR video is delivered as BT.2020). Or is BT.2020 Pro a smaller gamut than BT.2020?

    This article is the only thing I can find on Google which mentions “BT.2020 Pro”, at least in English.

  • db2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    121
    ·
    3 days ago

    It’s not going to be cheap, though — in the US, the 65-inch model is officially priced at $3,499.

    • lyralycan@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      3 days ago

      Lol, such bs. When HDTVs were made ‘smart’, and then 3D, the only ones sold were 40"+ and £3,000+. Took about three years for that price to drop 90%. But this is garbage news, who still wants a television in this century? Pubs, community spaces and that’s about it. Monitors are significantly cheaper, with less bloat and software lock.

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        3 days ago

        who still wants a television in this century?

        This is so out-of-touch it’s unreal.

        —Someone who doesn’t still want a television in this century

      • thejml@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 days ago

        Well, I might not want a TV… all I really want is a 60"+ high quality, high refresh rate, 4k+ panel to game, work and watch media on…

        On wait; thats literally an HDTV minus the tuner.

        The only thing that makes it a TV IS the tuner… and honestly it’s not bad to have in an emergency or for local OTA stuff anyway. If I never use it then having it doesn’t matter.

      • accideath@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        People who watch movies or tv series a lot and who care about image quality? Couch gamers? I couldn’t get a decent 65“ monitor. But my TV has a very good image, supports 2160p with 144Hz, VRR, HDR, etc.
        And at no point did my TV force me to go online. I can 100% just ignore the software. What more could I want?

        • lyralycan@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Bruh 65" is only good if you’re like 6m away - almost no homes are like that. <=42" is the only normal size for a normal home, and sacrificing no quality. I get preferences, but that size has nothing to do with practicality

          • accideath@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            20 hours ago

            The optimal viewing distance of a 65“ TV is somewhere between 1.98m and 2.69m for it to fill out 30-40° of our field of vision, as recommended by the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE), for an immersive „cinematic“ watching experience.

            My TV is about 2.5m away from my couch and I’m quite happy with the size, although, if price didn’t play a role, I‘d have gone with another size up (77“). Although I admit, it’s not the most practical size and it’s not for everyone. It does take up a lot of space.

            However with 42“ you’re definitely sacrificing quality. Or at least I would be at the 2.5m distance I sit from my TV. The vast majority of people (me included) could not discern any difference between a FullHD and a UHD image there. Our eyes simply do not have that resolution (measured at up to 94 pixels per degree). Even my 65“ at the aforementioned 2.5m distance has a higher resolution than my eyes.

            So >=65“ is the only normal size for a normal home, if one actually wants a home cinema and actually not sacrifice on quality, detail and immersion.

  • bitwolf@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Ah so close!

    If it lacked any smart tv features and had displayport it would be my next tv.

    • ThanksForAllTheFish@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Ignore me if I’m being stupid, but could you just not give it internet? A lot of TVs have high spec CPU/APU these days and complicated firmware, surely ability to update the firmware for these is necessary for patches/feature improvements. They probably think it’s silly not to include software if they can, but I agree the software experience is often a bit of a let down. LGs been good, but admittedly I block all telemetry on my network so wouldn’t notice any downsides.

      • SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        People aren’t just objecting to the quality of the software, and even more than objecting to the relentless commercialization at every opportunity in the ‘smart’ features, they are rightfully worked up about the firehose of surveillance telemetry these devices are feeding back to the manufacturers.

  • Alpha71@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I like TV’s. I was using 3 1080p 60hz TV’s as monitors. I recently upgraded to a Philips Google TV. 43" 4K, 144Hz, with HDR10 & Dolby Atmos. The difference is amazing. and I love the larger size.

    • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Couple of years ago I bought an LG 50” TV as a monitor. Since it was cheaper then buying a large monitor. I also like the large size, since my eyesight has gone to shit. Also I have a deep desk so I can just push the TV to the edge of my desk and have all the desk space available and still have a screen that fills my view. I only wish it was curved since 50” is just a bit too large.

  • poopkins@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    3 days ago

    Hisense UR9 RGB, but note that the port is on the left bezel of the panel. Hopefully saved you a click.

  • Sounds great! I’ll gladly pay $200usd for it.

    I skimmed the article and didn’t see any mention of price, but I expect it to be 10x what I’m willing to spend on a display.

    Also if it’s a smart tv I’m no longer interested at all.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    Oh good, now you can watch ads on your giant tv when your console or PC game ends because the TV will know.

    Next: subscription access to play games on said Big TV.

    • woelkchen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Oh good, now you can watch ads on your giant tv when your console or PC game ends because the TV will know.

      You connect TVs to WiFi?

  • foodvacuum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 days ago

    Damn. Too expensive for me. My TV has a dark spot after 8 years. I’m going to be on the market for a new one in the next year or two and displayport would be sweet. Hopefully this starts a trend. This is Hisence and am excited to see reviews for the latest TCL models to drop

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Now all peripherals just need to adopt compatibility for this single TV model and it’ll catch on.