Indigo wrote:Personally, I believe the higher picture quality of 4K isn't very obvious unless you have a really big screen, let's say 60" or larger, so IMHO the 48" models don't make much sense (and maybe Australian distributors are wiser than the others...) But 48" models are a lot cheaper and people will buy them just to brag that they have a 4K tv. That is until larger models become more affordable.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I think it is rather dismissive and a put-down ("maybe Australian distributors are wiser than the others" - WT?) of those who may not want to make your choice!Habitual watching distance?
It all depends how far from the TV one sits. It may be a bit of 'chicken and the egg' but maybe we don't sit close to normal
TVs because we couldn't without noticing the pixels, so if one has set up one's loungeroom with a 'car parking space' between oneself and the TV, then of course only the larger TVs work for 4K.
However, I have always been one to sit closer to a smaller and cheaper TV than sit further away and have to spend twice as much just to get a larger one!
But 4K is the enabler for a converged paradigm, where one can use it for a large monitor pixel space, but also sit a little further back when one wants to enjoy a relatively close and immersive hi-res experience.The retina myth
I know when Apple used the phrase retina
it was supposed to define the maximum pixel density per viewing distance, beyond which it was 'pointless' going denser because most were not supposed to be able to tell the difference.
Well, it seemed to totally ignore that most could see a difference between 300 and 600 dpi when it came to printing, and there were reasons why masters were done on 2400dpi Linotype machines.
My Note 2 (1280x800) was supposedly retina at the 35cm (14") I looked at it, but my Note 3 (1920x1080) makes everything, especially small text, so much clearer at the same distance.Horses for courses
Now if you want to sit far away enough from a TV that for you 4K will only work on larger ones, then that is your prerogative, but the wide interest in use of TVs as 4K monitors suggests that many are not wanting to accept such limitations.
For sitting at about 70cm (28") from a monitor, a 120cm (48") 4K TV would have pixels only a few % larger than those on my Dell 76cm (30" - 2560x1600), while giving me a perfectly usable (that is, no driveways
between the pixels!) TV if I sit at about 1 metre (39").
For using as a monitor, I think the smaller models are far more suitable, and for those doing photography, the various 32" 4K monitors are much closer to photo density.