Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

4K HDTV


CLTPanther

Recommended Posts

Anyone have one? Worth the extra cost? My TV is about 11 years old and I'm going to buy a new one in a few weeks before the regular season gets into swing. Thinking about buying the one below, it's about another 700 more than a 1080p of the same spec would be. Have read you need to get at least 50-55 inch TV to really notice the 4K difference. Worth it? I'm aware of the receiver requirements for HDMI 2 and have that covered as well as upscaling.

 

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ID2HI8O/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=1NIOA5K8P96EW&coliid=I2ZK24QWI3M0E4&psc=1

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have installed a few... Usually in a commercial environment, but I did install 1 in a client's Living Room. I do not see much difference between that and a 1080p. Not really any content available in 4K resolution yet, either... I cannot justify the extra cost to you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have installed a few... Usually in a commercial environment, but I did install 1 in a client's Living Room. I do not see much difference between that and a 1080p. Not really any content available in 4K resolution yet, either... I cannot justify the extra cost to you. 

 

 

Eh... what do you know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I just don't think there is enough 4k content to jump onto this, right now at least.  It's kind of like 3d and it never took off.  However, I think 4k WILL take off eventually.  I was in HH Gregg over the weekend and was looking at these TVs and I can clearly tell the difference between them and 1080p.  However, they were using demos in a loop that were obviously 4k content.   I would just get a regular nice 1080p for now and wait till 4k gets more mainstream with more content.  I don't even think cable/satellite is really broadcasting true 1080p yet, Netflix has it and you can get a good picture over OTA, so it'll be a while before cable companies invest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I know there isn't a lot of 4K content, but it is on the way. Just thinking since I'm definately going to buy a new TV if I should set myself up for the next 10 years or so. At any rate, I will be watching the Panthers on a new 50 or 55 inch flat screen LCD TV this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figure when I buy a new TV in 5 or so years it might be worth it.

 

FYI I bought a 51" CRT Projection HDTV for $700 in early 2007 when everyone was buying 42" LCDs for $1500.

 

Still looks as good as the day I bought it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...