OT - Recommendations for a New TV to watch Football

Submitted by xtramelanin on July 27th, 2016 at 8:18 PM

Mates,

It is time for us to buy a new TV.  The old one works, but is 13+ yrs old and doesn't have all the features, bells and buzzers like the newest generations of TV's.   We only have the TV hooked up during college football season, so whatever we get will see light duty for 3-4 months, then be dark for the rest of the year.  Video games are not part of the equation for us, assuming people still play them on TV's. 

General specs would be that it be in the 45-50" size range.  I am looking at a Sam's Club catalog which shows a Samsung 48" 1080p Smart TV for $348.  There's a couple of Vizio's "Class 4k UHD Smart Cast" TV's, and the 50" is $448.  

So the question is:  Given the specs and usage, what do you recommend for TV's and features in that size range?  What is the most bang for the buck and the 'must have' specs? 

Thank you in advance,

XM

EDIT:  I want to thank the folks that have responded.  This is exactly the content/discussio I was hoping for.  Very helpful on all fronts.

Comments

reshp1

July 27th, 2016 at 9:56 PM ^

50" is really too small for 4k to matter. You would have to be just a couple feet away for your eyes to even be able to resolve the extra resolution over 1080p.

That said, the better TVs are all 4k now, kind of like 3D a few years ago. The sets with better picture quality will all be 4k whether you will to take advantage of it or not.

I have a Vizio 70" 4k UHD and like it a lot. The only complaint is there's a bit of motion blur on reds and skin tones, particularly in darker scenes. It's not really noticeable for sports, just dark scenes with people's faces that can smear a little with subtle movement. That's pretty nitpicky though, and a limitation of the LCD technology though.

reshp1

July 27th, 2016 at 10:47 PM ^

Netflix, if you count that as broadcasting. All their originals and a few movies and shows are in 4k. Youtube has some stuff too, although quality seems subpar (too much compression). OTA 4K is supposedly around the corner though. With the increased installed base, cable and satellite will likely follow suit as well.

I Like Burgers

July 28th, 2016 at 1:07 AM ^

No. And they aren't going to. It's a massively expensive upgrade for the video provider and supplier to get 4K video broadcast to your TV and since most TVs are in the 50" range you can't even tell much difference between 720p or 4K. Most people don't even broadcast in 1080p for the same reasons. Like ESPN for instance broadcasts in 720p.

All 4K really is, is a convenient marketing strategy that followed the 3D boom. It's nicely sequential. I'm sure they'll find a 5-something thing to promote in a year or two after 4K buzz has died off.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

WestSider

July 28th, 2016 at 1:31 AM ^

because the first few guys nailed it. Buy the 1080p with at least 120hz native refresh rate, and you will be golden, on anything 55" and less. 4K is best for computer monitors, where you are sitting so close to the screen. Many experts have said you can't tell much if any difference on screens that are not 65" or larger. 

andidklein

July 27th, 2016 at 9:06 PM ^

I know Fox shoots the NFL in 4K but since none of the stations broadcast in that format it gets down converted, it's a waste for viewers, but when the change finally happens they'll have all those melt reels of highlights in 4K ready to go

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

I Like Burgers

July 28th, 2016 at 1:10 AM ^

I doubt it'll happen anytime soon. The cost involved to develop the bandwidth and infrastructure to broadcast 4K is hugely expensive. Considering all the cable networks are pinching pennies, it ain't gonna happen. SD to HD was a government mandated shift. No one outside of marketers cares about 4K.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

VicTorious1

July 27th, 2016 at 9:20 PM ^

Depending on the TV, it may upscale HD content to 4K, which could be an improvement over 1080P. The quality of the software doing the upscaling is determinative of the upscaled picture. The upscaler essentially doubles the pixels being displayed and uses an algorithm to calculate the type of the new pixels.

switch26

July 27th, 2016 at 9:30 PM ^

Correct no major providers have anything in 4k.. like already said Amazon prime and Netflix have great 4k options and look amazing. My TV upscaled to improve 1080p but it isn't a huge difference.

Content streamed in 4k over Netflix or Amazon are currently equivalent to a Blu ray disc quality. Separate 4k remastered DVDs look incredible

maizenblue92

July 27th, 2016 at 8:33 PM ^

Make sure you get a "Smart" TV. It is great because I have it connected to the WiFi and am able to run Netflix, HBO Go, Youtube, and Watch ESPN directly on the TV with an HD picture. It is a Samsung 1080P 55inch if wanted the specs. 

SAMgO

July 27th, 2016 at 9:43 PM ^

Or not pay the $100+ premium for a "smart" TV and instead get a roku stick for less than half the price that has far superior functionality to most smart TVs out there.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

UMgradMSUdad

July 27th, 2016 at 9:38 PM ^

It might have changed since I bought my most recent set two years ago, but at that time the advice was to avoid so-called "smart" tvs, especially if it cost any more.  Generally they would cost in the neighborhood of $100 more, and be less reliable than roku or some other similar device, because the tv manufacturers didn't always provide software upgrades to their smart sets.  Anyway, the idea was that you could get better service cheaper with an add-on device.

UMgradMSUdad

July 28th, 2016 at 2:33 AM ^

That sounds like a great deal, especially with the features, including that it's a smart tv. It's not that a smart tv is a bad thing, it's just that "smart" should in no way be considered a necessary feature of any tv you buy, and you certainly shouldn't pay extra for it. A Roku, Fire Stick, Chromecast, etc. will be superior, expecially in the long run, to whatever smart features the tv manufacturer has added.

UMgradMSUdad

July 28th, 2016 at 2:33 AM ^

That sounds like a great deal, especially with the features, including that it's a smart tv. It's not that a smart tv is a bad thing, it's just that "smart" should in no way be considered a necessary feature of any tv you buy, and you certainly shouldn't pay extra for it. A Roku, Fire Stick, Chromecast, etc. will be superior, expecially in the long run, to whatever smart features the tv manufacturer has added.