• Go to page :
  • 1 2
  • Text Only
Voting History
rated:
Here we go...by far the cheapest I've seen for a 4k LED.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details...

Update: Coupon code TJM88351 takes another $100 off, making the total $1199.99 shipped.

Tiger Direct
Need a Tiger Direct coupon that earns 1.0% FatWallet Cash Back?
Member Summary

Seiki 50" 4k LED TV
Thanks Valtron9000
Disclaimer
Most Recent Posts
Bump. Anyone that got this TV care to share their impressions?

brentpresley (May. 22, 2013 @ 7:26p) |

Amazon has a bunch of reviews

bmoss1 (May. 30, 2013 @ 5:20p) |

Here's a link to a review of this TV from consumer reports... They don't view it favorably except for price.

Consumer Re... (more)

MattH56 (Jun. 01, 2013 @ 11:05a) |

Staff Summary
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

Nice deal. At lot of improvement vs. a 50" at 1080p.

Same pixel density 35ppcm(88PPI) as a 25" (if there is such a size) at 1920x1080. So it's like putting 4 of those panels together to create a 50" screen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density.

Is the change from 1080p to 4K even perceptible by the human eye? Or is this like 240Hz refresh rates (i.e. doesn't matter)?

Dragonsnack said:   Is the change from 1080p to 4K even perceptible by the human eye?

Yes.

SKORPI0 said:   Nice deal. At lot of improvement vs. a 50" at 1080p.

Same pixel density 35ppcm(88PPI) as a 25" (if there is such a size) at 1920x1080. So it's like putting 4 of those panels together to create a 50" screen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density.

Thanks skorpio. I thought 4K was relative to 1080p, meaning the 2160 isn't 4K. But now I don't.
Great price for a 4k. Thanks op.

There is really no Media for a 4k tv now...and will be tough to stream it the future...need LARGE DL speeds

I'm sorry, but wouldn't this be a 2k set? I don't hear people referring to 1920x1080 as 1920p, only 1080p. So wouldn't a 3840x2160 be 2160p or 2k, rather than calling it 4k? Also, I don't think download speeds will be a problem when the consumer level 2k video goes mainstream. The only problem would be in household streaming.

I looked this up, as my primary interest was as a computer monitor:

"The problem is the HDMI 1.4b standard only supports 4K rates of 24 Hz and 30 Hz. due to the overall bandwidth limits of that interface. The soon-to-be-completed HDMI 2.0 standard supports up to 60 Hz. for 4K video signals, but the first UHD TVs with HDMI 2.0 inputs are not expected to show up on dealers shelves until sometime next year. All of the current first generation of 4K UHD TVs, including the $20,000 ones from the likes of Sony and LG, have this same limitation." -- http://www.avsforum.com/t/1466270/seiki-se50uy04-first-low-cost-...

sweet for a monitor at that resolution

the contrast ratio is way too low 5000:1.
my 240hz 60 inch samsung 7100 has 20,000,000:1
this would probably be a deal to skip.
thanks anyway

contrast ratio vary by manufacturer

Those 20,000,000:1 dynamic contrast ratios tend to be used more for marketing purposes and isn't really an accurate measurement on what one should look for in a display. The full on/off contrast ratio (i.e. static contrast ratio) is what you should be really looking at. Usually these are around 1000:1 or some number much lower than dynamic. Sadly most display manufacturers have all jumped on the dynamic hype.

As others have mentioned, these wouldn't be suitable as monitors due to the frame rate locked at 24 Hz, but nevertheless fantastic price, didn't think the price would drop so fast...

webdoctors said:   As others have mentioned, these wouldn't be suitable as monitors due to the frame rate locked at 24 Hz, but nevertheless fantastic price, didn't think the price would drop so fast...

I guess when the world is going broke unnecessary items drop in price because people are forced to pay more for food, housing, and fuel.

Too good to be true?

Dragonsnack said:   Is the change from 1080p to 4K even perceptible by the human eye? Or is this like 240Hz refresh rates (i.e. doesn't matter)?

No, not unless you plan on using this as a monitor (i.e. close viewing). Pixel density, as a single measure, means nothing. You must also know how much of the visual field is covered by the monitor. If you agree that your visual acuity is the limiting factor for seeing a difference, than if you sit further away from your TV than 6.5 feet, you can't even resolve 1080p. You would have to sit less than 6.5 feet from this TV to potentially see a difference, and closer than 3 feet 3 inches to be able to resolve all of the pixels. Yes, three feet from a 50" TV; but it would be awesome as a monitor if it had a higher refresh capability!

MoonlitHollow said:   I'm sorry, but wouldn't this be a 2k set? I don't hear people referring to 1920x1080 as 1920p, only 1080p. So wouldn't a 3840x2160 be 2160p or 2k, rather than calling it 4k?

HD is nominally 1 megapixel: 1280x720 (720p) or 1920x540 (1080i). Going beyond they had to choose a number, so they went with the spec-enhancing horizontal resolution, so 1920 is 2K (which everyone knows as 1080p), 4k is 3840x___, 8k is 7680x____. I use blanks because the vertical resolution will change with the aspect ratio of the panel/system. A 22:9 ratio (cinemascope) will have fewer than 2160 vertical pixels, but the 20" 4K Panasonic tablet due out later this year is a 3:2 ratio panel, so it's vertical resolution will be 2560.

MoonlitHollow said:    Also, I don't think download speeds will be a problem when the consumer level 2k video goes mainstream. The only problem would be in household streaming.

O.o Um, at least in the US, the download will be the limiting factor for just about everywhere that isn't lit by Google fiber. For those who have broadband, the average is 6.7mbps *peak* speed, which means that highly compressed 1080p will pretty much saturate that connection (4k carries 4x the data). Most wired networks that are 10 years old can carry 60+Mbps, and nearly all new equipment is delivered with 1000Mbps gear which can run at 300-400Mbps without tuning. Even wireless routers sold today are almost all capable of 50mbps sustained traffic. Once you get to the house, you're golden - it's the last-mile *reliable* download speed that prevents most streaming.

Overzeetop said:   Dragonsnack said:   Is the change from 1080p to 4K even perceptible by the human eye? Or is this like 240Hz refresh rates (i.e. doesn't matter)?

No, not unless you plan on using this as a monitor (i.e. close viewing). Pixel density, as a single measure, means nothing. You must also know how much of the visual field is covered by the monitor. If you agree that your visual acuity is the limiting factor for seeing a difference, than if you sit further away from your TV than 6.5 feet, you can't even resolve 1080p. You would have to sit less than 6.5 feet from this TV to potentially see a difference, and closer than 3 feet 3 inches to be able to resolve all of the pixels. Yes, three feet from a 50" TV; but it would be awesome as a monitor if it had a higher refresh capability!

MoonlitHollow said:   I'm sorry, but wouldn't this be a 2k set? I don't hear people referring to 1920x1080 as 1920p, only 1080p. So wouldn't a 3840x2160 be 2160p or 2k, rather than calling it 4k?

HD is nominally 1 megapixel: 1280x720 (720p) or 1920x540 (1080i). Going beyond they had to choose a number, so they went with the spec-enhancing horizontal resolution, so 1920 is 2K (which everyone knows as 1080p), 4k is 3840x___, 8k is 7680x____. I use blanks because the vertical resolution will change with the aspect ratio of the panel/system. A 22:9 ratio (cinemascope) will have fewer than 2160 vertical pixels, but the 20" 4K Panasonic tablet due out later this year is a 3:2 ratio panel, so it's vertical resolution will be 2560.

MoonlitHollow said:    Also, I don't think download speeds will be a problem when the consumer level 2k video goes mainstream. The only problem would be in household streaming.

O.o Um, at least in the US, the download will be the limiting factor for just about everywhere that isn't lit by Google fiber. For those who have broadband, the average is 6.7mbps *peak* speed, which means that highly compressed 1080p will pretty much saturate that connection (4k carries 4x the data). Most wired networks that are 10 years old can carry 60+Mbps, and nearly all new equipment is delivered with 1000Mbps gear which can run at 300-400Mbps without tuning. Even wireless routers sold today are almost all capable of 50mbps sustained traffic. Once you get to the house, you're golden - it's the last-mile *reliable* download speed that prevents most streaming.


Thanks for explaining the naming conventions. I think I confused you with what I meant regarding internet speeds. I guess I'm spoiled, but in the metro areas it is easy to get high speeds. I get 30/5 speeds of through charter. I had meant the upload speeds to be the limiting factor when streaming your own media to outside the internal network.

Dragonsnack said:   Is the change from 1080p to 4K even perceptible by the human eye? Or is this like 240Hz refresh rates (i.e. doesn't matter)?

On a 50" screen? Barely. You would have to be sitting closer than 7' to the tv to see any differences at all, and then it's all diminishing returns unless you have your nose in the tv. In fact, on an 80" screen you'd have to be sitting closer than 10' away to notice any difference. I've said it once and I'll say it again, 4K is really for very large screens for people with huge rooms or home theaters.

There's no reason trying to push it as a mainstream technology until the cost of the panels is negligible. You're better off spending your money getting a high image quality 1080p screen than spending your money on a mediocre to poor 4K screen. For this price you could buy a 50" 1080p plasma with all the bells and whistles that'll blow your mind with image quality. I'd bet good money that this tv wouldn't look as impressive playing a 4K source as a good quality 1080p plasma (or even high end LED/LCD) playing 1080p content.

**Edit** There is one use for 4K TVs for the mainstream, and that's passive 3D. You can actually display passive 3D at full 1080p instead of it being reduced to half resolution.

EvilWizardGlick said:   

I guess when the world is going broke unnecessary items drop in price because people are forced to pay more for food, housing, and fuel.


Where are you paying more for housing?

Overzeetop said:   if you sit further away from your TV than 6.5 feet, you can't even resolve 1080p

Not entirely true...close for this size TV though.

A chart to help you pick your TV size/resolution:
viewing distance

A 1080p source on a 50" display will start to "become noticeable" at as far away as 7.5'.

I used that chart to decide what size TV to buy. It's right on. My viewing distance is approximately 10' so I went with a 61" TV and I can definitely see a difference between a 1080p and 720p source.

More numbers:
wiki pedia

Note that even the strict THX guideline for a 50" is 5 - 7.5.

Interesting...but given the lack of media currently available to utilize this....it seems more for bragging rights than practical use.

Thanks!!! this the cheapest 4k tv

amazing price if the specs are for real. Thx op!

So, who's glass is this panel?

mbseeker said:   the contrast ratio is way too low 5000:1.
my 240hz 60 inch samsung 7100 has 20,000,000:1
this would probably be a deal to skip.
thanks anyway


LOL.....

Stoodo said:   EvilWizardGlick said:   

I guess when the world is going broke unnecessary items drop in price because people are forced to pay more for food, housing, and fuel.


Where are you paying more for housing?


Those of us who have moved out of the basement pay taxes and homeowners insurance. Those increase regularly because so many of today's youth still live in the basement and work part time due to the hipster work ethic.

EvilWizardGlick said:   Stoodo said:   EvilWizardGlick said:   

I guess when the world is going broke unnecessary items drop in price because people are forced to pay more for food, housing, and fuel.


Where are you paying more for housing?


Those of us who have moved out of the basement pay taxes and homeowners insurance. Those increase regularly because so many of today's youth still live in the basement and work part time due to the hipster work ethic.


Oh, I get it, so this is the hipsters' fault.

MoonlitHollow said:   I'm sorry, but wouldn't this be a 2k set? I don't hear people referring to 1920x1080 as 1920p, only 1080p. So wouldn't a 3840x2160 be 2160p or 2k, rather than calling it 4k? Also, I don't think download speeds will be a problem when the consumer level 2k video goes mainstream. The only problem would be in household streaming.

They should have used megapixels like camera's for marketing HDTV.

720 = 1 megapixels
1080 = 2 megapixels
1440 = 4 megapixels
2160 = 8 megapixels

tooloud said:   Dragonsnack said:   Is the change from 1080p to 4K even perceptible by the human eye?

Yes.


Not effectively, you'd have to sit less than 2 feet from the screen to notice a difference vs 1080p on a 50" screen. Don't argue, it's science.

chripuck said:   tooloud said:   Dragonsnack said:   Is the change from 1080p to 4K even perceptible by the human eye?

Yes.


Not effectively, you'd have to sit less than 2 feet from the screen to notice a difference vs 1080p on a 50" screen. Don't argue, it's science.


The dude didn't say anything about a 50" screen, just whether the human eye could perceive the deference between 1080p and 4k. Don't argue, it's a fact.

Ha, someone gave me red for posting a 50" 4k LED for $1300 shipped? Tough crowd, I guess.

More fact and science:

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

Chart shows that full benefits of 4k start at ~2.5 ft...BUT some benefits of 4K are observed at 5 ft. This is for people with perfect vision.

Personally, I'm waiting til the 84" Sony 4K TV goes for $1299. Better not hold my breath.

ZenerDiode said:   More fact and science:

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

Chart shows that full benefits of 4k start at ~2.5 ft...BUT some benefits of 4K are observed at 5 ft. This is for people with perfect vision.


I figure that the benefit starts at the idea that you can view a 4k set at whatever distance you like, and if you walk closer to it you can see more detail, just like in real life. That is, I've never understood why everyone seems to put the baseline at "borderline perceptible" for the usefulness of a high resolution monitor.

tooloud said:   
I figure that the benefit starts at the idea that you can view a 4k set at whatever distance you like, and if you walk closer to it you can see more detail, just like in real life. That is, I've never understood why everyone seems to put the baseline at "borderline perceptible" for the usefulness of a high resolution monitor.


Yup. Whats more, oft times, you're watching shows with other people who can't always get the sweet spot because of room arrangement or whatever. I've been to Superbowl and movie parties where I really wished the host had a slightly better resolution TV cause I was stuck with the close up seat. So why not be prepared if you can afford it?

What kind of video card can drive this monster?

ProppaT said:   Dragonsnack said:   Is the change from 1080p to 4K even perceptible by the human eye? Or is this like 240Hz refresh rates (i.e. doesn't matter)?

On a 50" screen? Barely. You would have to be sitting closer than 7' to the tv to see any differences at all, and then it's all diminishing returns unless you have your nose in the tv. In fact, on an 80" screen you'd have to be sitting closer than 10' away to notice any difference. I've said it once and I'll say it again, 4K is really for very large screens for people with huge rooms or home theaters.


What?!?!?! According to the TV salesman at Best Buy, I am supposed to have an 80" TV for my living room because I sit 6' away from the TV!!! Are you saying he lied to me??

toenailsmasher said:   ProppaT said:   Dragonsnack said:   Is the change from 1080p to 4K even perceptible by the human eye? Or is this like 240Hz refresh rates (i.e. doesn't matter)?

On a 50" screen? Barely. You would have to be sitting closer than 7' to the tv to see any differences at all, and then it's all diminishing returns unless you have your nose in the tv. In fact, on an 80" screen you'd have to be sitting closer than 10' away to notice any difference. I've said it once and I'll say it again, 4K is really for very large screens for people with huge rooms or home theaters.


What?!?!?! According to the TV salesman at Best Buy, I am supposed to have an 80" TV for my living room because I sit 6' away from the TV!!! Are you saying he lied to me??


Same guy told me I needed the $150 6' Monster HDMI cable...he fibbing to me to?

webdoctors said:   As others have mentioned, these wouldn't be suitable as monitors due to the frame rate locked at 24 Hz, but nevertheless fantastic price, didn't think the price would drop so fast...

I'm confused. The site says "Seiki 50" Class 4K2K LED HDTV - 3840 x 2160, 16:9, 120Hz, 5000:1 Native, 6.5ms, 3x HDMI, VGA (SE50UY04)". Where are you getting 24hz from?

Edit: Never mind.

Hejj said:   webdoctors said:   As others have mentioned, these wouldn't be suitable as monitors due to the frame rate locked at 24 Hz, but nevertheless fantastic price, didn't think the price would drop so fast...

I'm confused. The site says "Seiki 50" Class 4K2K LED HDTV - 3840 x 2160, 16:9, 120Hz, 5000:1 Native, 6.5ms, 3x HDMI, VGA (SE50UY04)". Where are you getting 24hz from?


If you would read the entire thread, you would understand..

Skipping 20 Messages...
Here's a link to a review of this TV from consumer reports... They don't view it favorably except for price.

Consumer Reports

Enjoy



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014