Sony Bravia KDL49WE753 LED HDR Full HD 1080p £412.30 instore @ Tesco Seacroft
273°Expired

Sony Bravia KDL49WE753 LED HDR Full HD 1080p £412.30 instore @ Tesco Seacroft

18
Found 14th Oct
Not 4K but not bad for the price. In store only I think : offer Seacroft Leeds Only one left

18 Comments

Not HDR then your description is incorrect

martywarty11 m ago

Not HDR then your description is incorrect

Why?

martywarty21 m ago

Not HDR then your description is incorrect

If you actually look it up it's HDR

Original Poster

"Not HDR then your description is incorrect"


It Is HDR .. to do with the way pixel colours are displayed and not the number of them as in
4K v HD numbers

JFind15 m ago

"Not HDR then your description is incorrect"It Is HDR .. to do with the …"Not HDR then your description is incorrect"It Is HDR .. to do with the way pixel colours are displayed and not the number of them as in4K v HD numbers


Well, the HDR term itself refers to increased contrast through brighter highlights, the wider colour gamut is just coming along for the ride (because when you're updating picture standards, why stop?).

Leaving aside the discussion about whether a TV should be labelled HDR if it's only got the wider colour gamut the main issue with this TV is that it doesn't support HDCP 2.2 so a lot of sources won't even provide it the HDR stream.

I believe Sony's PS4 will do, but I don't know if anything else does.

Not 4k! In 2017 at this price it needs to be 4k

Expensive for old technology

back in my day people used phones to speak to each other and tvs were 1080p

lol

It's just over £400 for a Sony 49" - I certainly wouldn't care about lack of 4K at this price range, chances are a 4K screen at this price would not give as good results as this screen does... just having more pixels does not equate to being a better picture. You can get terrible 4K panels and wonderful 1080 panels.

spannerzone6 m ago

It's just over £400 for a Sony 49" - I certainly wouldn't care about lack …It's just over £400 for a Sony 49" - I certainly wouldn't care about lack of 4K at this price range, chances are a 4K screen at this price would not give as good results as this screen does... just having more pixels does not equate to being a better picture. You can get terrible 4K panels and wonderful 1080 panels.


Its obviously personal choice but @ £400 its still a very short term purchase that will be limiting your future options pretty quickly.

Especially as there are TVs that wont which are already around this price.

FREEZIN_WOLF8 m ago

Its obviously personal choice but @ £400 its still a very short term …Its obviously personal choice but @ £400 its still a very short term purchase that will be limiting your future options pretty quickly.Especially as there are TVs that wont which are already around this price.



Electronics are so cheap and disposable these days I don't feel it worth worrying too much, for me 4K might be important if I was getting a screen bigger than 50" - and if and when I decide, I'd just get a new one and suspect many do the same. I'd rather have a decent performing 1080 that will display my content well rather than a 4k that'll just be upscaling everything....I don't believe any of the hype that you can upscale 1080 to 'near 4k' because it's not true.

However I guess that if a 4k was the same price and did give the same results on 1080 material then it would make sense to consider 4k.

I just want good viewing angles, no clouding, sharp well defined images and no motion blur and other electronic trickery to supposedly improve performance.

£412 is very cheap in my opinion for a branded 49" screen.
Edited by: "spannerzone" 15th Oct

FREEZIN_WOLF2 h, 22 m ago

Its obviously personal choice but @ £400 its still a very short term …Its obviously personal choice but @ £400 its still a very short term purchase that will be limiting your future options pretty quickly.Especially as there are TVs that wont which are already around this price.

Where exactly do you think 1080p signals are going to go in the next 5 years?

My best guess is that we're going to be waiting a very long time to receive 4K over Freeview, and by the time that comes around everyone's fancy 4K TVs that they 'invested in' won't work with those signals

BraddersJ6 h, 21 m ago

Where exactly do you think 1080p signals are going to go in the next 5 …Where exactly do you think 1080p signals are going to go in the next 5 years?My best guess is that we're going to be waiting a very long time to receive 4K over Freeview, and by the time that comes around everyone's fancy 4K TVs that they 'invested in' won't work with those signals



It will be via streaming. Sky and the likes are so slow to adapt, they might do 4k in 2030 with a £40 per month extra charge.

FREEZIN_WOLF13 h, 23 m ago

Its obviously personal choice but @ £400 its still a very short term …Its obviously personal choice but @ £400 its still a very short term purchase that will be limiting your future options pretty quickly.


That's absurd, name me one single program that I can't view on a 10 year old TV. I can't think of anything newer than HDCP 1.4 support that might limit what you watch.

The resolution is irrelevant for what you watch, it's only how the TV reproduces the picture. There's never going to be a program made that can only be watched on high quality TVs.

The lack of HDCP 2.2 may be a restriction in the long term, but I can't see that happening for a decade or more.

EndlessWaves8 h, 51 m ago

That's absurd, name me one single program that I can't view on a 10 year …That's absurd, name me one single program that I can't view on a 10 year old TV. I can't think of anything newer than HDCP 1.4 support that might limit what you watch. The resolution is irrelevant for what you watch, it's only how the TV reproduces the picture. There's never going to be a program made that can only be watched on high quality TVs. The lack of HDCP 2.2 may be a restriction in the long term, but I can't see that happening for a decade or more.


Read what i wrote.
Its the same with any tech development. It doesn't necessarily become obsolete, it just means that it doesn't have functionality to keep up with (not necessarily even match) current tech.

For example i use AV Amp in the living room for the TV. I use another in the dining room, connected to the projector. Neither have Bluetooth so when i got an Echo for the dining room and a dot for the living room my options were limited. Bluetooth is now pretty standard in Amps. If i were buying another i wouldn't choose an older branded model without it over a lesser perceived premium brand with it (and probably a whole host of other functionality). Especially if the prices were comparable.

But thats purely my opinion.
Check out some of the reviews of Hisense equipment. Get it with a 6 year warranty from Richer sounds. If you get it home and you don't like it send it back. If you have it for 5yesrs 11 months and 29 days and it dies then you get a replacement.

As an owner of a lot of Sony equipment i wouldn't be afraid to move away from it. Times have changed. There's still some rubbish out there but there's some absolute brilliant value for money to be had.

FREEZIN_WOLF3 h, 27 m ago

If i were buying another i wouldn't choose an older branded model without …If i were buying another i wouldn't choose an older branded model without it over a lesser perceived premium brand with it (and probably a whole host of other functionality). Especially if the prices were comparable.But thats purely my opinion. Check out some of the reviews of Hisense equipment.


There are no 50" Hisense models available at £412 at richer sounds. The closest is the N5700 at £470 which is 15% more expensive and that doesn't have bluetooth.

Perhaps you could provide an example of a £410 TV with better connectivity?

EndlessWaves37 m ago

There are no 50" Hisense models available at £412 at richer sounds. The …There are no 50" Hisense models available at £412 at richer sounds. The closest is the N5700 at £470 which is 15% more expensive and that doesn't have bluetooth.Perhaps you could provide an example of a £410 TV with better connectivity?


Haa, excellent!

1) I never even mentioned a TV with Blutooth.
2) This is 49", not 50" if we're being pedantic
3) I said "around this price".
4) I don't consider £58 extra from your example (by comparison) to be much more, especially as you get a SIX year warranty, potentially better connectivity, (however i've never actually suggested that so i'm not sure where you're getting these flawed arguments from) and the ability to view UHD with 10bit panel capability. What do you get at Tesco... 12 month then potentially a further 1 year Sony??

I'm not overly bothered, i'm not buying a TV until the new year. I'm quite happy with my Sony in the front room. But thats about 7 years old now... Its got a good 1080p screen. You can have it for £400 if you like.
Edited by: "FREEZIN_WOLF" 16th Oct

FREEZIN_WOLF22 m ago

(however i've never actually suggested that so i'm not sure where you're …(however i've never actually suggested that so i'm not sure where you're getting these flawed arguments from)


You've suggested several times that paying the extra will get you more features that will allow you to do more in the future. Your initial post said this will 'limit your options' very quickly, your second post was a bit muddied so it's not clear whether you were saying that a TV with bluetooth could connect to amps (as I assumed) or making an analogy with bluetooth on amps.

Either way, you've definitely been suggesting that spending money will let you view stuff on the TV that you can't otherwise, yet haven't provided a single concrete example of what that might be in this case, or even an example of it happening in the past.

Spending 15% of the value of a £400 item on a warranty doesn't make economic sense. The failure rate won't even be 1.5%.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text