32" 4K TV?

Discussion in 'Digital Video' started by Thunderbird, Dec 28, 2015.

  1. Thunderbird macrumors 6502a

    Thunderbird

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    #1
    I'm in the market for a 32" TV. I am trying to decide whether to hold off until 4K comes to the 32" size, or just buy a 1080p 32" now (which are now quite cheap).

    I guess my question is: How long do you think it will be before they start making 32" 4K TVs in the price ranges we now see for 32" 1080p TVs?
     
  2. cruisin macrumors 6502a

    cruisin

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Location:
    Canada
    #2
    I doubt you will get a TV in this size at all, as the difference between 720 and 1080 for a 32 inch TV is barely visible at usual TV viewing distances. If they do make them then I don't see a TV in this size appearing for 3-5 years, maybe when 4K becomes much cheaper.

    You can get a 4K monitor in this size for a reasonable price if you don't need perfect colour, but you will need a separate sound system unless your display has sound.
     
  3. \-V-/ Suspended

    \-V-/

    Joined:
    May 3, 2012
    #3
    What's your budget and why do you want 32 inches? You're not even going to be able to really tell you're viewing 4K content on that small of a TV unless you're extremely close to it. Having said that ... you can get 4K TVs for almost the same price as 1080p TVs these days.
     
  4. Thunderbird, Dec 28, 2015
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2015

    Thunderbird thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Thunderbird

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    #4
    My budget is around $500, which will still be my budget for a 32" in a few years. The TV will be sitting on my computer desk, and I'll be approx 36" from it. So yes, I will be able to tell the difference, it won't be a huge difference I realize that. I don't want to buy a separate larger TV for my living room, as I'd rather have a screen dedicated to movie watching on my desk that I can sit close enough to and be big enough for an immersive experience. that's basically the reason. Also, it's still generally cheaper to buy a TV than a computer monitor of the same size.

    The only reason I ask is that, even though I'd rather have 4K, I don't want to wait more than a couple of years for it to be available in a 32" size. The difference from 1080p won't justify waiting longer than that for me. Right now I'm using a 22" computer monitor which is so-so, but would like to upgrade to a bigger screen at some point strictly for movie and TV watching.
     
  5. \-V-/ Suspended

    \-V-/

    Joined:
    May 3, 2012
    #5
    You're not going to find a 32" 4K TV. You will, however, be able to find a 32" 4K computer monitor and it'll be gorgeous to look at. You might want to try that instead.
     
  6. JDDavis macrumors 65816

    JDDavis

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    #6
    $500 budget and a quick search on Bing showed the options are pretty limited unless you step up into the 40" range. Here are two Samsung offerings that are close to what you want. I've had good luck with Samsung TVs but I've never used them as a computer monitor. It seems you want one for both? If you are not doing color work I imagine they would be fine.

    A 32" at 2560 x 1440 for $579
    http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-WQHD-...1451392250&sr=1-1&keywords=32+inch+4k+monitor

    A 28" at 3840 x 2160 (4k) for $488
    http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00YD3DBOC/ref=psdc_1292115011_t2_B00L3KNOF4

    As others have stated there are more offerings in the monitor world but you'll have to expand your budget (maybe 2x) if you want a 32" 4k monitor or perhaps drop down to the 27"-28" range.
     
  7. puckhead193 macrumors G3

    puckhead193

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Location:
    NY
    #7
    why do you want a 4k tv now? Once 4k becomes more common on broadcast TV the prices will drop and the panels will be better. I don't see 4k become common for a few more years. Once the NFL/sports goes 4K i'll consider it common :p
     
  8. hwojtek macrumors 6502a

    hwojtek

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    A small rural village in western Poland
    #8
    No you won't. http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/
     
  9. Thunderbird thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Thunderbird

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    #9
    Lol...arbitrary numbers based on average statistical norms of visual acuity. Not impressed.

    Besides, the 2 ft calculation result on 32" screen size is close enough for me.
     
  10. JeffyTheQuik macrumors 68020

    JeffyTheQuik

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2014
    Location:
    Charleston, SC and Everett, WA
    #10
    I'm with Thunderbird. I'm looking to add two of these to my desktop setup for a flight simulator for my 5K iMac.
     
  11. hwojtek macrumors 6502a

    hwojtek

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    A small rural village in western Poland
    #11
    Yes, the actual numbers used to design TV sets, on-screen graphics, CG, camera and postproduction work in the movies. Obviously you're smarter than the designers.
    Your 5K iMac does not have enough GPU power to drive a single 5K screen properly in a game played in full res, not to mention a single 5K and two additional 4K screens in native resolution.
     
  12. JeffyTheQuik macrumors 68020

    JeffyTheQuik

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2014
    Location:
    Charleston, SC and Everett, WA
    #12
    Well, when you're in town, and you come to my house, we can play X-Plane 10 together.

    It works very nicely on my 2014 iMac on my single 5K screen in 5120x2880. It works for me, as well as the writers shown in the article you referenced. In fact, after the first screen, there is a nice graphic that says that you can add a 4K monitor, and it works just fine. I just want to add a couple of 4K screens and see how it performs. I suppose the worst case is that it doesn't, and I'll just get a couple of Mac Minis, network them, and run it that way.

    Another thing... I looked at the article, and it does note that the screen may not do well for high speed Windows games, but I never said that I wanted to do that. I want to run a flight simulator (X-Plane) flying a Cessna 172, or a 787, not an X-Wing through the Death Star. Come to think of it... After 2 successful attempts on death stars, you think that the Empire would learn a lesson or two about Death Star construction.
     
  13. Thunderbird thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Thunderbird

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    #13
    They don't use seating distance charts to design all those technologies. Silly comment.
     
  14. JeffyTheQuik macrumors 68020

    JeffyTheQuik

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2014
    Location:
    Charleston, SC and Everett, WA
    #14
    I think the commenter isn't interested in solving the problem, only telling those that are reading this thread how silly they are for doing what they want to do.
     
  15. hwojtek macrumors 6502a

    hwojtek

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    A small rural village in western Poland
    #15
    There is no "problem" in here. It's a case of putting the left hand into right back pocket across the belly, but to each his own...
     
  16. Arran macrumors 68040

    Arran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Location:
    Atlanta, USA
    #16
    FWIW, I bought a 4K tv recently. I did a lot of research but I never saw anything as small as 32"

    I did see some absolutely dirt cheap 1080 models (dirt cheap compared to a few years ago)

    My guess is that all the smaller 4K panel production is being used to build monitors (not TVs) which can command higher margins. Large 4K TVs are already pretty cheap, so a small 32-incher would have to come in at a "kitchen TV" price of $199-299, whereas a 32" 4K monitor could go for much, much more as "professional equipment".
     
  17. Arran macrumors 68040

    Arran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Location:
    Atlanta, USA
    #17
    Yeah, it's what we geeks do.

    The difficulty is what makes it enjoyable! :D
     
  18. kohlson macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    #18

Share This Page