I know people who have 70 inch (5 ft 8 inch or 1.8 metre) TV sets. I think it is insane to have one. I am 5 ft 8 inches tall, and do not want anything that large in my bedroom. Then I heard of an 84 inch TV—7 ft or 2.1 metres diagonally. I was just not interested. But that was until I saw it, face-to-face. And was I impressed!
It can do full 3D at Ultra High Definition (3840 x 2160 pixels, also called 4K), which is four times better than an HDTV. It also has a 2.2 sound system with 50 watt speakers. The images are displayed at 200 Hz (most computer monitors do 60 Hz), so there is no question of the screen flickering. The TV can upscale HD content to 4K, though you should not expect 4K quality with this. Its 3D mode is really impressive and it switches seamlessly between 3D and 2D modes. It is also a smart TV and can connect to the internet and sundry peripherals wirelessly.
The pictures are not only clear and sharp, they are immersive too. When I saw the city of Istanbul on it, I felt like I was actually there—on, say, a balcony. But I returned to reality with a thud once they told me its price. And that set me thinking. For this amount, I could buy a luxury holiday in Istanbul. Besides, there is hardly any 4K content available to watch. At best I could use it as a digital photo frame for the images I shoot with my 24 megapixel camera. But who buys a Rs 17 lakh TV to display still images?
Though I was impressed by it, I cannot justify a purchase. If you buy only Stuart Weitzman Shoes, visit the golf course in a Bentley and have your kids dropped to school in a Porsche, maybe you can go for it. I’d rather take a 30-year home loan.