Avatar image for shadowskill11
#1 Posted by ShadowSkill11 (1877 posts) -

http://kotaku.com/moneysaver-one-shot-a-4k-tv-for-966-513671749

I just couldn't pass this up myself. I got a PS4/X1 launch model pre-ordered on Monday and couldn't resist this deal today.

Avatar image for turtlebird95
#2 Edited by Turtlebird95 (3618 posts) -

That's an impressive deal, but I think I'll hold off until 4KTVs are more common. I've never heard of Seiki Digital and I'd be more comfortable with a brand I'm familiar with.

Avatar image for azteck
#3 Posted by Azteck (7416 posts) -

I'd rather use a 4k TV with my PC where I actually have use for it.

Avatar image for jazzycola
#4 Edited by Jazzycola (672 posts) -

Seiki? Good luck with that. Also, games will not run at 4k resolution. There's just no way, so there isn't a benefit to have it for gaming (not to mention there is very little media that even has 4k content).

Avatar image for zoozilla
#5 Posted by zoozilla (1023 posts) -

I don't really get the point of 4k TVs - I mean, movie theaters still use 2K a lot of the time. A 4K TV that's only 50 inches doesn't seem very compelling. That's just me, though.

Avatar image for icemo
#6 Posted by Icemo (715 posts) -

There is really no need for 4k television if you don't have a monster PC that costs a lot of money. You might be able to watch 4k movies when they come out with next gen consoles, but I don't think they have enough power for playing games at 4k resolution. I would wait for 4K material to be more common if I were you.

Avatar image for evilnights
#7 Posted by EvilNiGHTS (1169 posts) -

If HDTV prices over the last ten years are any indication, they'll drop faster than my pants while checking the Xvideos RSS feed. No sense in being an early adopter on this stuff.

Avatar image for nethlem
#8 Edited by Nethlem (624 posts) -

No sense in being an early adopter on this stuff.

Especially a cheap one..

50" 4k TV for less than $1000? There has to be something stinking here, no way they can deliver that resolution at that price, at least not without cutting back on performance in other areas like latency/colors/features. I wouldn't trust a regular HDTV in the sub $1000 to be suitable for my gaming needs, so a 4k TV in that price range seems kinda like a fishy deal.

Avatar image for pillclinton
#9 Posted by PillClinton (3551 posts) -

Save the money, buy a really nice, even bigger 1080p TV, or buy a high quality 30'' monitor. All those would be better choices.

Avatar image for mrfluke
#10 Edited by mrfluke (5834 posts) -

wayyyyyyyyyy to early to buy one of those,

its a great price though.

Avatar image for tourgen
#11 Edited by tourgen (4568 posts) -

how close to a 50" do you have to sit to make the difference between 1080 and 4000 matter? 2 feet?

Avatar image for colourful_hippie
#12 Posted by Colourful_Hippie (5710 posts) -

lol yeah because I'll be able to take advantage of all the native 4k games, huh? I won't lie though, if I didn't already bought the nice tv that I did a couple months ago I probably would have jumped on this offer, I could see myself messing around with it on a PC.

Avatar image for strikealight
#13 Edited by StrikeALight (1202 posts) -

@mrfluke said:

wayyyyyyyyyy to early to buy one of those,

its a great price though.

Yeah, think I'll pass.

Avatar image for kryptickiller
#14 Edited by KrypticKiller (206 posts) -

@nethlem said:

@evilnights said:

No sense in being an early adopter on this stuff.

Especially a cheap one..

50" 4k TV for less than $1000? There has to be something stinking here, no way they can deliver that resolution at that price, at least not without cutting back on performance in other areas like latency/colors/features. I wouldn't trust a regular HDTV in the sub $1000 to be suitable for my gaming needs, so a 4k TV in that price range seems kinda like a fishy deal.

You must have at least a 50" screen right? Otherwise I think you paid a bit to much.

Avatar image for impartialgecko
#15 Posted by impartialgecko (1863 posts) -

4K TVs are dumb. This coming console generation is just about to make 1080p standard and there's no media out there that makes it worth diving in early.

Avatar image for slowhanded
#16 Posted by slowhanded (75 posts) -

Why not spend that money on say, a better TV? $1000 can get you a panny plasma. More than likely better than what you're watching from, and far better quality than a budget, no-name brand 4k TV. The blacks alone should be a huge upgrade from most LCDs.

Avatar image for themanwithnoplan
#17 Edited by TheManWithNoPlan (7003 posts) -

While that's a pretty good deal, in reality you'd have to be a special kind of crazy to buy one now. It'll be awhile before there's a significant amount of anything to support 4k.

Avatar image for andorski
#18 Posted by Andorski (5481 posts) -

Why would you want a 4K TV for PS4 or X1? The vast majority of games will be at 1080p.

Avatar image for zekhariah
#19 Edited by Zekhariah (700 posts) -

@andorski: They probably have decent upscaling hardware.

The big limitation with 4k right now will be the max 30Hz screen refresh rate, because of the current HDMI standard. Work is being done to finalize an update leading into having higher frame-rate 4k work (and display port theoretically ahs some support of it), but its not really a mature tech. I think Samsung indicated their TVs would be upgradable to the new standard when it comes out, but that is not the sort of arrangement Seiki will have (though I do think they are probably a legit enough brand - post CCFL backlights there should not be to much left to have a horrible failure rate even if you go cheap on materials).

Avatar image for shagge
#20 Posted by ShaggE (8394 posts) -

4K? More like "por qué"! Oooooooh snap.

Avatar image for nethlem
#21 Posted by Nethlem (624 posts) -

@kryptickiller: I've got an 60" Samsung Plasma from last years lineup. And that thing, even with a really good deal, did cost me 1400 Euro.

Not saying that cheap things are worse no matter what. But when somebody is trying to sell you a Ferrari for $100 there has to be something fishy about that deal.

Avatar image for bemusedchunk
#22 Posted by bemusedchunk (886 posts) -

I don't even think many video cards can hit the 4k resolution needed yet...

Avatar image for thecreamfilling
#23 Posted by TheCreamFilling (1235 posts) -

Is 4K the new 3D?

Avatar image for winternet
#24 Edited by Winternet (8397 posts) -

Wake me up when 16k comes around.

Online
Avatar image for kryptickiller
#25 Posted by KrypticKiller (206 posts) -

@nethlem: I totally agree with you with regards to this tv. I was just wondering what size of screen you had as I have not seen a tv below 50" for more than $900.

Avatar image for somejerk
#26 Edited by SomeJerk (4077 posts) -

What's confirmed about this panel is that it's got the pixels, just not the prettiest colours. This is the real deal, this is an attempt at shaking up the industry and I hope it takes us somewhere.

I thought what if, I got one of these for development? What if I modified Diablo 2 to take advantage of 4K? Here's the equivalent of D2's 800x600 resolution maximum in a 4k 16:9 field.

No Caption Provided

I think it'd be weird to get one of these displays if you weren't a huge PC nerd able to put it to use but more sales for this company = larger chance the big players will adapt.