Good deal. I've been watching out for this TV for a while and this is the cheapest I've seen by far, although it's $2,199 USD at Walmart :/
Compare to the Panasonic 65ST60
http://www.savvyappliances.com.au/panasonic-65-3d-full-high-…
Sony - larger screen and passive 3d
Panasonic - brilliant image and cheaper
Can I install the Netfix app on these or is it locked out due to AU?
Wow, that TV has a very bad response time… look at the ghosting!! :P
Dear Santa…
Forget about 70" you can see bigger picture from sony 4k tv now. I already order mine. price $6010
http://www.sony.com.au/product/kd-55x9004A?cid=email:mysonyj…
4K Ultra HD Display (3840 × 2160)
55 inch X9004A
Might want to cancel the order, under $6k at Harvey Norman. I think $5875.
What exactly are you planning on watching at native res? Other than PC games and videos captured by a 4k videocam. Upscaled content is just a waste of money
Maybe right now! Give it some time and we should have a decent amount of 4k content available!
$4000 is a lot of money to be spending on a 1080p tv when 4k is here! If you are still set on buying a new 1080p tv, you should wait a few months and the prices should drop like crazy on 1080p Tv's!
70" and 55" can't be compared. Paying a premium for size vs paying a premium for resolution is different. It makes no sense investing in resolution now when current formats don't support it. By the time 4k is gone mainstream, 4k tv prices would've gone down by a huge margin.
We will be getting more 4k content, when ps4 release.
Don't talk him out of it. The more 4k tv buyers now, the quicker prices will come down for them and full HD TV's.
4k or not, the Panasonic will still look better.
70 inches of LED would need a decent viewing distance.
What you talking about Marto? Did you mean viewing "angle"
He means you'd need to sit a fair distance away.
Exactly. Anything other than HD source on this thing closer than 4m or so would look atrocious.
and i paid 3.5k for 46" a couple yrs back…T.T
I know, I bought a 40" for $1500 few years back (was good price then), picked up the exact same model for my mum second hand fairly recently for about $350. TV's are a money pit, but what would we do without them? Other (more productive) stuff, I suppose LOL.
In 3d the panasonic plasma will give you twice the resolution vs a passive 3d tv.
Half the resolution per eye - but since you only have 1 brain - and it is constantly compiling the images we receive from both eyes into a single perceived image - you do receive the full resolution where it counts - and at full frame rate.
A discussion about the "passive 3d half resolution myth" here:
http://stijndewitt.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/active-vs-passiv…
From the conclusion at the bottom:
So there you have it. Theory, practice and certification offices all agree: Passive 3D does not halve resolution compared to active 3D.
LG have been certified as providing full HD resolution in 3D:
http://www.lgnewsroom.com/newsroom/contents/61296
More info - which indicates passive 3D can be far superior to expensive/heavy/flickery active 3D:
http://www.displaymate.com/3D_TV_ShootOut_1.htm
Sharpness and Resolution with FPR Passive Glasses
By far the most controversial and misunderstood issue in 3D TV currently has to do with the sharpness and resolution delivered with Passive Glasses. Because they split the odd and even lines between the right and left eyes it’s easy to see why many people (and some reviewers) conclude that FPR technology delivers only half of the HD resolution. Although unsubstantiated it still seems to have evolved into some sort of myth based on hearsay instead of actual scientific visual evaluation. Many people seem to get stuck on this particular issue and can’t get beyond it and think about what is really being seen in actual 3D vision.
But it’s not that simple because we watch TV from a far enough distance that the lines are not resolved and we know that the brain combines the images from both eyes into a single 3D image (the one we actually see) in a process called Image Fusion.
…
In all cases the small text (6 to 10 pixels in height) was readable on the FPR Passive Glasses, which definitively establishes that there is excellent 3D Image Fusion and the Passive Glasses deliver full 1080p resolution in 3D. Again, if the Passive Glasses only delivered half the resolution, as some claim, then it would have been impossible to read the small text on the FPR TVs. So those half resolution claims are manifestly wrong – no, ands ifs or buts!
…
Furthermore, in all cases the small text was actually sharper and easier to read and fine details easier to resolve on the FPR Passive Glasses than on the Active Glasses because of the Crosstalk, ghosting and Response Time issues that reduce 3D image sharpness and 3D contrast in Active Glasses TVs
Maybe you should go back and read the comments on the article/blog you posted. The main reason the active tv did so poorly was due to cross talk… My recommendation is choose a better active tv. Anyway no point arguing this, as I said read the comments and dig deeper.
I've decided that I will never pay more thank 1k for a tv coz they depreciate so fast :)
EXPIRED: $4496 @JB, $4487 @Good Guys. $4276.80 @VideoPro (lowest on staticice). Pity, seems like a great deal if you were in the market.
MOD. Expired. $4177.00. Cheapest on staticice now:
Sony KDL70R550A LED TV [Includes delivery]
Flingshot logo Flingshot (NSW) | flingshot.com.au | updated: 06-08-2013
This model is no more than $2500 in the USA. At some stores it's even less, about $2100.
When I buy electronics I refuse to pay more than 10% of USA prices. Otherwise, I buy some other brand or buy from overseas.
There's 40 arms in the picture. Hope this helps.