If you look up a few posts above yours I mentioned the Visio TVs for 999. It seems like a solid deal for sure...but IMO its an absolutely pointless product. 50 inches is way too small to see benefits of 4K on a TV from a comfortable viewing distance. 70+ inches is where 4K comes in to its own.

Also what are you going to run on a 4K TV from your couch in the next few years? the newly announced Netflix 4K streaming is pretty much the only decent content that will utilize that TV. You may as well wait for the price to come down even more.

Monitors and TVs aren't the same product at all...and in 2013 id rather spend $799 on a really good 28 inch 4K monitor than $999 on a 4K TV. I can utilize its screen realestate for work and pleasure including proper PC gaming and enjoy the gorgeus pixel density it has to offer.

So then explain why the "average consumer" decided to upgrade to an HDTV from an SDTV?  If no one cared, and if "the human eye can't discern", then 9 out of 10 people would have been perfectly fine getting a signal converter (remember those?).  Guess what, the average consumer cares, and they will upgrade when these technologies become common place.  So when 4K/UHD monitors start showing up everywhere with reasonable price tags (see Vizio's p-series), everyone will be making the transition.  Because that's what happens.  Technologies progress, people adopt.  When blu-ray came out I heard so many arguments about the "average consumer" not caring or being able to see the difference... and now it's the norm.  People appreciate a significant bump in quality as long as it's affordable and convenient.  So when Netflix jumps up to 4K/UHD resolution, it's going to end up fitting into the grand scheme of things as well.  Also, Samsung has just announced 4K blu-rays by the end of this year.  Forward progress is going to happen (it's happening right now), and it's going to be accepted by the masses no matter how you look at it.

There's more to a screen than size!

Yeah there certanly is... People must be thinking 4K is a form of beer or alcohol. The more for less money the better...

"If I get a 28 incher for 799 but can get a 50 incher for 999...why would I get a 28 incher?"

/thread

How is this with consoles ??

I've heard because of some mumbo jumbo, many monitors are not ok, so you need a TV.

It's somewhat pointless with consoles and bluray and anything that doesn't offer native 4K output. I doubt that the monitor scaler is any good and consoles dont upscale to anything higher than 1080p.

It is best utilized as a computer monitor where you can maximize the screen realestate with programs and use it for gaming at native resolution.

LOL TN PANEL

Turkish said: LOL TN PANEL

Sad but best gaming monitors are TN pannel. Unless you have $3000 bucks to spend that is...

For example - http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2014/01/07/asus-pg278q-g-sync-pb287q-gaming-monitor/1

Asus says of the decision to use a TN panel, "Not all TN’s are made the same: the premium panel used in the PG278Q is of very high quality. IPS panels (and their derivatives like PVA/MVA etc) are not suitable for a multitude of reasons: 1) the response rate is simply not fast enough to react to the active change in refresh rate and 2) They cannot reliably achieve >60Hz without significantly affecting the quality of the image. IGZO technology (and LTPS – low temperature polysilicon – likewise) – yields 100′s of times faster electron mobility versus standard amorphous silicon panels – and thus can provide a response rate comparable to TN (up to 60Hz currently), but, however desirable this technology is, it is still currently cost prohibitively for many PC gaming enthusiasts in 2014, which is why ROG has used a better price:performance, high quality TN panel."

Too bad the most bang-for-the-buck card that gives you 4K at steady and reliable framerates is the R9 290/X. And that is still too fucking expensive.

Was just asking out of curiosity though, I just tried once to connect a gamecube to a desktop, and the result was hideous.