70" 1080 vs 55" 4k
same price point
wut do
125'' 5080p
>>52176459
32" 720p
use as PC monitor
85 inch curved oled 8k
Do you have space for a 70" TV?
1080p. Unless you have loads of 4k content to watch then there's not much point.
>>52176712
I already have a 32" 720, that's why I want to upgrade. Doesn't work well as a monitor t-b-h, but I use it as a mirror display/to watch movies sometimes. I also have a 27" 1080 monitor.
1080 because 4k isn't mature at this point
>>52176744
>he thought I was being serious
>>52176459
Depends on your house?
I'd personally get the 4k if it's one of the better models and not some older piece of shit ones.
.... Then if you wanted a bigger screen, you'd best look into projectors. It's nice to have both. Projector for movie nights/shows with the family, maybe some gaming too. The TV could be used for daily watching. I myself bought an optoma hd26, 6 3d glasses(haven't watched a 3d movie since spy kids 3d,loving the new 3d) and an 84 inch screen for just my room alone. The screen is motorized so it just comes down over the TV when needed. All together I think the price was like a little over 600. I can't imagine how the 1000 dollar+ projectors are like lol.
I'm thinking about maybe getting a 120 inch screen for the living room and a higher end projector. Ironically a 120 inch screen is cheaper than the 84.
>>52176724
Yes. I drove past a TV store on the way home to look at the sizes. I was surprised by how small the 40's looked. I've never had a TV bigger than 32".
I live in a one bedroom that is very spacious. I generally sit pretty far from the TV as well (over 10 feet) If company is over, the closest they'd sit is maybe 6 feet.
>>52176816
>playing a game at 720p on an 84 inch screen
>>52176817
I have a 55" tv in roughly that setup that is completely fine. A 70" might be too big, might not be, dunno. Don't go off how things look in the store though, shit's deceptive.
Tape it off on your wall.
>>52176459
55 4k unless you want minecraft
>>52176837
>optoma hd26
>not looking up specs
>2016 just started
>>52176837
would content less than full HD look worse on a big TV compared to a smaller one?
>>52176872
Yes
>>52176866
>red dead redemption
>being so retarded you dont know you're playing it on an xbox 360
>it's 2016
>>52176872
hilariously worse
>>52176844
That's a great idea.
Definitely deceptive. The 32" TVs look micro in the store.
>>52176872
Content that IS full HD looks worse on a larger tv at a given distance. Pixel density yo.
>>52176921
true
the neat thing about 4k is that there is so much detail that it actually looks better the larger the screen is.
>>52176459
it's almost a yes or no question at that point but let me simplify it further for you.
>do you want a bigger screen or better quality?
>>52176921
Yeah. I remember a few years ago my buddies had a HUGE TV in their place, but the living room was so narrow that the picture looked awful because you're sitting so close.
>>52177035
This is false. It's the exact same as 1080p. It's just that the screen has to be larger than it would with 1080p for you to start noticing an adverse difference
>>52176905
Oh wow lol my bad. Gf was just playing the the ps3. I recently sold some of my computer parts so can't really play anything else. And all of my ps3 games are on my pc as well so I'm stuck playing whatever was left on the ps3 for a while. I might play some Kingdom Hearts, I've heard good things about it.
Anyway, would you recommend a 4790k or should I just go with a 4690k?
>>52177074
What ps3 emu is that?
>>52178260
Not a ps3 emulator. It's an actual ps3 with custom firmware on it. The launcher is called irisman. Too bad there's not that many games being made for the ps3 and getting older titles can be a hassle. Hope one day they'll be as common as ROMs and ISOs
