is this worth it?

>>56166082
There's no 4k content besides some porn, but my Roku TV + Plex is great

>>56166082
No

>>56166082
Why insignia?

File: 1456571348843.jpg (116KB, 693x1039px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 693x1039px

>>56166082
I wanna buy one for animus

>>56166143
People aren't usually buying a new TV every year nor is anyone forcing you to return it after a couple of days. 4k content will be the norm at some point.

>>56166082
4k in general? Absolutely. It's the first good resolution. People need to adopt it fast so we can start moving towards 8k.

File: 1459089268527.gif (1MB, 320x289px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x289px

>>56166297
>Japan will be airing animu in 8k soon
>some countries in the West don't even have 1080p broadcasting yet

>>56166082
If you wanna get a 4k TV, wait 3/4 years unless you just have cash to burn

>>56166524
The point is, why would you buy it now for a higher price when there is no content

>>56166941
Netflix and Amazon do have a bunch of 4k stuff though. It's not a lot, but more than nothing.

>>56167045
Then you need to ask, is your internet connection capable of streaming 4k content and then, how is your wifi. Some of these cheaper smart TVs are wifi only

>>56166707
I love this


Can't we just skip 8k and go to 16k, or 32k?

File: CfdpIiEWIAAGL0s.jpg (12KB, 431x467px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 431x467px

Not really
>TFW I fell for the 4k meme

>>56167083
If you are gonna stream then get a set top box like a Roku, the integrated "smart" features on TVs are absolute shit.

>>56167888
me too
At least I can read Japanese symbols like 蒙 clearer

>>56167083
>is your internet connection capable of streaming 4k content

yes I live close enough to civilization

I bought a 55" LG 4k TV a while ago for $600, no regrets, I didn't spend much on it so no big deal.

>>56168053
There are still multiple densely metropolitan aeras in this world where residents only have ADSL2 speeds.

(Well I'm not one of them I got 1 Gbps up and down)

>>56168089
>Well I'm not one of them

Stop caring about them

>>56168053
It's just another thing to consider. And unless you have at least a 300Mbps connection and hardware to be able to actually transfer a REAL 4k bitrate of 36Mbps+, you don't really have it. Now, Amazon and Netflix won't bother with that quality, I'm just saying

>>56166082
I have two 32in Roku enabled TCL tvs, non 4k obviously.
Im betting the Insignia TV is the same with a different badge.

The Roku TV works just as well as the Roku 3 that I have used.
It keeps getting updates (had the tvs almost 2 years now).

It looks alright for how dirt cheap they were. Im a fan of it, well worth it for a cheap TV.

Im assuming this is by far the cheapest 4k tv out there?

>>56168447
>It keeps getting updates (had the tvs almost 2 years now).
This is good news. I just bought a TCL 48" Roku 1080p (2016 version) for $270. It's been great so far.

>>56166082
>insignia

God no, buy a LG or a Vizio.

how come tv's went from 1080p to 4k, why not 2k?

>>56168510
whats wrong with insignia?

>>56168747
Minor increase in visual quality. The jump from standard def to FHD was huge. No point in little bumps up now

is it worth buying a 4k tv now, I still dont see much content out there

>>56168765
Your friends won't be impressed.

>>56168850
You answered your own question

>>56168850
You answered your own question, there, buddy.

>>56168765
Nothing really. It might not have "dark as my soul" blacks that that anon needs, but you'll probably be perfectly happy with it, especially for the price

>>56168850
Think about it, you can buy one now with an xboneS and sit there and wait for 4k media to start trickling out, or you can wait until there's something you actually want and get all on sale later at a much lower price

Is the built-in Roku on these TV's the best Smart TV OS? Like, I know of Tizen and LG WebOS but I'm gonna assume Roku performs similarly to the standalone roku boxes. Is this true?

>>56169461
Yes it's the best in terms of integrated systems. should perform on par with the Roku stick. Can't really hold a match to the 3 or 4 in terms of performance though.

File: 1470230921033.jpg (40KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 480x360px

>>56166082
the only worthwhile tv is this one
http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-OLED65G6P-oled-4k-tv
it is literally FLAWLESS.
too bad it costs [spoiler]8k[/spoiler]

>>56167085
>Can't we just skip 8k and go to 16k, or 32k?

The big problem is that 8k will be ~200 dpi on a 45" display already, and trying to get normies to pay for TVs with the pixel clarity of a smartphone will be a hard sell.

The other issue is that getting that much data uncompressed between devices starts getting quite expensive. 10Gbps over a <1m shielded twisted pair is just barely cheap enough for consumer electronics, and 28Gbps transceivers and still enterprise-tier expensive (e.g., 4-pair 100GbE twinax direct attach cables).

Something like 8k@120Hz at 36bpp is ~143 Gbps, which clearly would require compression or stupidly expensive cables and transceivers at this point, and going to 4x or 16x the data rate is way off the horizon.

File: himZD0M.gif (993KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

993KB, 250x250px

>>56168053
>streaming

Can I watch four 1080P videos/streams at once on a 4K tv? I'm talking like something off my network, or twitch or 4 different news channels.

>>56168369
Why the fuck would you need 300 Mbps to stream 36 Mbps.

>>56168447
yeah, I've got a sharp 43" roku tv as a secondary TV and I love it. It's reasonably fast and with shit like the Time Warner Cable app, it doesn't even need a cable box hooked up to it.

You can buy a nice 50 inch 1080p tv for dirt cheap. No reason to spend 8 times that on 4k.

>>56171069
Are you retarded?