Vizio 70-in 4K Ultra HD HDR Google Home Compatible 1399$ In-Store

I think they were trying to beat this deal from Bestbuy:
https://www.bestbuy.ca/en-ca/product/vi ... 20912.aspx?

It's a no-brainer especially since Costco is 200$ cheaper and well, Costco warranty/return policy...

Good deal... Especially since it's from Costco. I'd probably spring for the extended warranty since it's Vizio, not Sony or LG or Samsung.

Does this tv have only 1 HDMI 2.0 port like the m series?

There are 4 HDMI ports but I believe that you're right, only one of them is HDMI 2.0 with the other three being HDMI 1.4

Im sure other experts can weigh in but that's what I have gathered based on the following references:

1) https://www.displayspecifications.com/e ... n/d23bd86b
2) https://www.smartreview.com/vizio-4k-tv ... on-reviews

Vizio /.

How is.it compared to the p series and x900e?

awsometruth wrote: ↑ How is.it compared to the p series and x900e?

Inferior

awsometruth wrote: ↑ How is.it compared to the p series and x900e?

escalade wrote: ↑Inferior

P series and x900e don't come in 70 inch in Canada.

However, the P series does come in 75 inch with a price tag of 5000$ if you're interested:
https://www.bestbuy.ca/en-ca/product/vi ... 47942.aspx

Same with Sony x900e which also comes in 75 inch with a price tag of 4000$:
https://www.bestbuy.ca/en-ca/product/so ... 84570.aspx

If you're a baller and want to pay 2.5-3x more for a superior product, why not?

Bigboy16 wrote: ↑ Good deal... Especially since it's from Costco. I'd probably spring for the extended warranty since it's Vizio, not Sony or LG or Samsung.

Lol, it not being a Samsung is a good reason not to bother with a warranty.

Obviously you will sacrifice picture quality for size in this case. Based on RTings review, nothing stands out from a PQ-perspective- poor peak brightness, poor color gamut, poor use of full-array lighting but it is a BFTV (big). As long as you're aware you're not going to be taking advantage of any HDR content I think you'll be quite impressed with the quality of 4K vs 1080P at this size. If eye-popping colors and brightness after calibration is your thing, this is probably not the TV for you.

This is not an HDR tv in anyway. It barely has enough peak brightness to be a living room tv.

brobinsoncc wrote: ↑ This is not an HDR tv in anyway. It badly has enough peak brightness to be a living room tv.

How is this not an HDR TV? Please do enlighten me

Did you even bother looking at the product page? (They specifically spell out "High Dynamic Range" in the product description)

awsometruth wrote: ↑ How is.it compared to the p series and x900e?

The only real comparable to this is sony x690e, which was this price boxing week (70”). There really arent many 70” tv since its 65 then 75 for most models.

kfactor08 wrote: ↑ How is this not an HDR TV? Please do enlighten me

Did you even bother looking at the product page? (They specifically spell out "High Dynamic Range" in the product description)

"Standard color gamut. This TV cannot properly show HDR colors, its gamut is only good enough for showing Rec 709 colors in standard content."

rtings.com

MotorN wrote: ↑ "Standard color gamut. This TV cannot properly show HDR colors, its gamut is only good enough for showing Rec 709 colors in standard content."

rtings.com

Plus its peak brightness is a quarter of what is required for true HDR. All a tv has to do to say HDR on the box is that it has to accept an HDR signal. It doesn’t have to display it. It’s all a big joke.


From rtings

“Poor SDR peak brightness. This TV does not get bright enough to take advantage of the increased brightness range of HDR content, so very bright features in scenes will not be much brighter than the rest of the scene as the content creator intended. Bright highlights in dark scenes will actually be dimmed because of how this TV's local dimming functions, as seen in our 2% and 10% white window tests. This is unlike the local dimming of most TVs, which brightens highlights.”

MotorN wrote: ↑ "Standard color gamut. This TV cannot properly show HDR colors, its gamut is only good enough for showing Rec 709 colors in standard content."

rtings.com

brobinsoncc wrote: ↑ Plus its peak brightness is a quarter of what is required for true HDR. All a tv has to do to say HDR on the box is that it has to accept an HDR signal. It doesn’t have to display it. It’s all a big joke.

Thanks! These comments were quite insightful!

kfactor08 wrote: ↑ How is this not an HDR TV? Please do enlighten me

Did you even bother looking at the product page? (They specifically spell out "High Dynamic Range" in the product description)

HDR-compatible (which almost every TV set is these days) is very different than being HDR-capable. This set appears (based on RTings review) to only be able to produce around ~200 nits peak brightness which is quite dim, especially for daytime/bright room viewing. True HDR targets at least 1000 nits at peak brightness and a panel capable of at least reproducing a wide color gamut (for high-end TVs, maybe >95% of P3 color space and >70% of 2020 space) but it's hard to come by a TV these kinds of specs today. For a mid-tier "HDR" TV, you'd be looking at at least 500+ nits brightness and numbers close to the color reproduction % I just gave.

kfactor08 wrote: ↑ Thanks! These comments were quite insightful!

kfactor08 wrote: ↑ There are 4 HDMI ports but I believe that you're right, only one of them is HDMI 2.0 with the other three being HDMI 1.4

Im sure other experts can weigh in but that's what I have gathered based on the following references:

1) https://www.displayspecifications.com/e ... n/d23bd86b
2) https://www.smartreview.com/vizio-4k-tv ... on-reviews

This is extremely annoying. The M series is far superior to the Sony x90e, Samsung 6200, Samsung 7000, any LG non oled, or these hisense tvs. Yet those tvs all come with hdmi 2.0