Originally Posted by scottman
This shootout will have almost no benefit to the consumer, except the handful of rich guys looking for a supersized screen. Not what you would expect from a place called "Value Electronics."
They should have included 4K sets in the 65" range, since that is what most customers will be buying. And we all know the extreme sizes are generally not indicative of other sizes and use different panels and even internal processing that would negate a consumer from using these results to judge other sizes in the line. I guess they can say there haven't been faceoffs of the largest sizes yet, but what use is it really?
Is it possible they are getting to keep those screens, so that is why they wanted these sizes? Just a chance to go on a shopping spree?
I think it makes perfect sense. the 1080p models are '1080p sized' and the UHD models are basically the sizes required to justify UHD resolutions. if they were allowing ppl to sit 4feet away, then they could get away with 55-65" models, but i'm assuming this will be like previous years, and those sizes are really necessary for UHD TV's.
basically the way I see it, if you look at small TV's, you'll see only small differences. if you look at large TV's, every flaw becomes that much more obvious, and the comparisons become that much better.
besides, this is the way the market is heading. we aren't comparing 42" plasmas, we are looking at the largest models available. it would be fair to limit the size of the UHD screens just because the 1080p ones are smaller.
ultimately this is a test for interest. there aren't many ppl that can write a blank cheque and say 'send me the winner'. the rest of us will decide with budget in mind, but I'd still want to know what the 'best' is and how the more value-oriented models compare.