Recommend me a smart TV

that

reiterate the old chestnut..... Screens are measured diagonally - corner to corner and not edge to edge... just 32" is small

neilmcl

EveryWhere wrote: »

The problem with buying older tech TV is that you are always behind the curve. If you can shoot 4k 60 FPS video on your phone, you cannot view it properly on your TV.
Also a standard digital camera will product photos at a much higher resolution than a 1080p TV.

If buying new, I would be looking a 4k screen and perhaps a refresh rate better than the standard low end of 50 Hz.

Many people complain that Samsung stop supporting their previous models all too quickly.

Richer Sounds has an 4k LG at a decent price; https://www.richersounds.com/lg-43uk6300plb.html Though over budget at £319

Pretty much a waste on a 32" screen which is what the OP specially wanted. Does anyone actually manufacture a 4K 32" TV?

neilmcl

that wrote: »

reiterate the old chestnut..... Screens are measured diagonally - corner to corner and not edge to edge... just 32" is small

Size is relative. Not everyone wants, needs or can comfortably fit a large 40"/50" in a small room.

EveryWhere

neilmcl wrote: »

Pretty much a waste on a 32" screen which is what the OP specially wanted. Does anyone actually manufacture a 4K 32" TV?

It's not my thread, so why are you addressing me? It's already been covered by others that modern TVs fit more screen into the same size of an older TV.. I put a 39" TV in the same space where I had a much smaller screen CRTV previously.

So just about everyone is suggesting to get a bigger screen with a 4k resolution.

I don't hear you arguing that people should not bother with Full HD+ screens on their much smaller screen mobile phones.
So quite ridiculous for you to argue that it would be wasted on a much bigger screen. Of course it is not wasted.
Their home video and photos will be able to be viewed in much more detail. They will also be able to play high definition 4k material via USB and streaming.

I don't know why you would want to dissuade the OP from buying something worth what he intends to spend.

RumRat

neilmcl wrote: »

Pretty much a waste on a 32" screen which is what the OP specially wanted. Does anyone actually manufacture a 4K 32" TV?

Samsung do one QN32Q50RAFXZA, US only though AFAIK.


I have a 40" a 55" and a 65" The 40" really does look small and I can't imagine going back down to a 32".

That said, I remember how large they used to seem when we first got one......
4K definitely the way to go, all TV's from major manufacturers are smart now.
Personally, I'd go Samsung....But, each to their own.

mobileron

Whatever model you get ensure you go to Richersounds or John Lewis for the free 5 year warranty.

ballyblack

my choice, one of the following makes;

Sony
LG
Samsung

The other manfacturers are mostly Vestel budget brands

neilmcl

EveryWhere wrote: »

It's not my thread, so why are you addressing me? It's already been covered by others that modern TVs fit more screen into the same size of an older TV.. I put a 39" TV in the same space where I had a much smaller screen CRTV previously.

Because you're the one suggesting getting a 4K TV, when the OP has specifically stated they're looking for a 32" TV. I merely pointed out that for the OP's stated requirement a 4K would be wasted on a 32" screen for TV use, so I don't see why you seem to have taken an affront. He hasn't said what he had before or where and how they intend using it. For example, a 32" sits perfectly as my bedroom TV, anything else would be overbearing, and not everyone wants a large screen TV dominating what could be a smaller sized living room.

EveryWhere wrote: »

I don't hear you arguing that people should not bother with Full HD+ screens on their much smaller screen mobile phones.
So quite ridiculous for you to argue that it would be wasted on a much bigger screen. Of course it is not wasted.

Completely different argument and in the same way I wouldn't argue against using a 4K monitor for computer use. The scientific evidence is quite clear and unequivocal, for normal TV use the human eye will simply not be able to resolve the extra detail on a 32" screen showing 4K content, not unless you're sitting right in front of it. There's a very good reason why there are no 4K 32" TV's manufactured today (apart from one rare example Rumrat has linked to above).

coffeehound

EveryWhere wrote: »

The problem with buying older tech TV is that you are always behind the curve.

Behind the curve is often the best place to be from a money-saving point of view. Early adopters pay a heavy price for the privilage.

EveryWhere

coffeehound wrote: »

Behind the curve is often the best place to be from a money-saving point of view. Early adopters pay a heavy price for the privilage.

That makes no sense, in this case. Since the OP is willing to pay £240 for a 32" Full HD TV, when in fact you can get a 43" 4k TV at the same price.

Really helps to engage brain before pressing that Submit Reply button.

So no, it doesn't make sense to pay the same price for old tech.

That argument only holds true if the old tech is much cheaper.