An 80" TV is ~$10K right now, How long til a generic brand version is under $2k? Options

[tantryl]

10 years ago the idea of owning a 60" TV was pretty ridiculous. It would have set you back 15+ weeks pay if you had a decent job. A fairly low res 1024x768 projector was a far more likely goal and even then it was weeks of pay.

Now you can get a far better quality ~60" screen for about a week of wages with a decent job.

The 80"ers you get now are ~$10K, have a pretty damn good image and are 1920x1080. When do you think something as good or better will drop below $2k? Or what other advancements/changes do you expect/want and when?

[Juggs]

My screen is so large that I can read tech threads in the green room!

[p0is0n]

I'd like to see an 80" TV do better than 1080p for $10k. 2560x1600+ at least. I'd say within a few years they will be cheap and we will be looking at 100"+ screens. I remember a few years back LG made a 104" TV and they were playing 4 player xbox on it, it was like having a 42" screen each. Not bad.

A few features?
Why not build in an ethernet port and allow TVs to stream/decode all forms of media from your NAS? That is a feature I think a lot of people would appreciate.
I could care less about 3D, i've seen a few films at the cinema and wasn't really impressed with it. I actually found it annoying and a little distracting. I haven't seen any decent 3D TVs yet.
Ditch the idea of 'touch buttons' on the front too. I can never see them in the dark and sometimes the sun turns them on or off.

This post has been edited by p0is0n: Sep 14 2012, 10:00 PM

[discoInferno]

Agree that at that sort of size you need a higher res screen. Like this...

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/08/sonys-84...we-want-it-now/

Huge and awesome 4k res. The problem then becomes what source do you have that can supply that high a resolution?

[nesquick]

Can't imagine the pixel density would be very good, I worked it out to be roughly 0.908mm for the size of each pixel

compared to my laptop which is 15"1080p that came back as 0.17mm per pixel (obviously these are rough and there are spaces between the pixels but still 1080P at 80" is pretty pathetic)

[drago13666]

I'd like to see an 80" TV do better than 1080p for $10k. 2560x1600+ at least. I'd say within a few years they will be cheap and we will be looking at 100"+ screens. I remember a few years back LG made a 104" TV and they were playing 4 player xbox on it, it was like having a 42" screen each. Not bad.

A few features?
Why not build in an ethernet port and allow TVs to stream/decode all forms of media from your NAS? That is a feature I think a lot of people would appreciate.
I could care less about 3D, i've seen a few films at the cinema and wasn't really impressed with it. I actually found it annoying and a little distracting. I haven't seen any decent 3D TVs yet.
Ditch the idea of 'touch buttons' on the front too. I can never see them in the dark and sometimes the sun turns them on or off.

I think your a little late to the party, my tv can already do that.

also, you could care less? that is like saying that 3d tv is not bad.

Speaking of features though.

I'm a little surprised that you can't get tv's with bluetooth so that you can use a wireless headset directly to the tv.

[Bundy]

A few features?
Why not build in an ethernet port and allow TVs to stream/decode all forms of media from your NAS? That is a feature I think a lot of people would appreciate.

My TV does that already for most codecs and if they aren't supported TVersity takes care of the rest.

[Harmonic Cacopho...]

I saw an 80"er in Harvey Norman, I think it was 12 or 14 grand. Pretty ridiculous when it's still only 1080p and optimal viewing distance would be further back than a 50 or 60 so it would be almost the same experience anway. A projector would be a much better option, would be bigger, and cheaper, and look better.