Hopley89
|
| posted on 27/12/13 at 09:20 PM |
|
|
This just shows how good LED'S are in a tv
Brilliant ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-1_9vxBGYQ
|
|
|
|
|
bigfoot4616
|
| posted on 27/12/13 at 09:32 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by franky
Not sure why there's so much fuss about having a 3d tv at home.
when i first got mine i watched a few things in 3d and then stopped bothering. not even sure where the glasses are now.
i didn't buy the tv for 3d though, just all the decent ones come with it.
mines a 50" panasonic gt50 and i'm yet to see a lcd that looks as good to my eyes.
|
|
|
franky
|
| posted on 27/12/13 at 09:35 PM |
|
|
Unless you actually know what you're looking for and compare like for like fed off the same source side by side you're better off buying
what hifi, sound and vision then getting what they like.
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 27/12/13 at 09:37 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by franky
Not sure why there's so much fuss about having a 3d tv at home.
I agree completely and it seems as if the manufacturers have already accepted the inevitable:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/145168-3d-tv-is-dead
Summary of above link is that at the CES 2013 show, the main manufacturers hardly mentioned 3D at all and market penetration has been very low. Even
people who have bought TVs with 3D often didn't buy it because it specifically had 3D.
IMAX 3D was very good for Gravity but that was more to do with the clever use of it. Most films tend to distract more than enhance through the use of
3D. Avatar was cute in 3D but every bit as enjoyable (and without the headache) in 2D. Almost all films I choose to see in 2D because I prefer it and
refuse to pay extra for a headache.
Fundamentally 3D on a TV or cinema screen will always be fake because the convergence point of the eyes is the only thing that is changing. The focal
point is always that same distance away. Linky: http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/why-3d-doesnt-work-and-never-will-case-closed
I'll buy a 3D device when I can view the picture in full 3D (convergence + focus) from any viewing angle in my living room and without wearing
stupid big glasses. Until that time, I'll settle for a good 2D picture. 
[Edited on 27/12/2013 by craig1410]
|
|
|
franky
|
| posted on 27/12/13 at 09:43 PM |
|
|
4k is the next 'selling point'. only SKY do anything in 3d and they've scaled it back to about 5% of what they did. They're
going to knock it on the head.
Funny thing is we're gearing up for 4k but proper HD is still not transmitted/sent to the home from any provider due to the 3gig bandwidth to
transmit and the fact its only just being recorded in it.
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 27/12/13 at 09:52 PM |
|
|
In my opinion the next area for significant improvement is in the user interface of the "TV" When I say TV here I mean the whole
experience not just the actual electronic device. This is where Apple have been rumoured to turn things on its head like they did with the phone in
2007 and I think it can certainly happen but will require a lot of things to align. The technology itself is the least of the problems as it once was
with the music and smartphone industries.
For me 1080p HD picture quality is perfectly good enough but the experience of using a TV is still pretty poor. I use an Apple TV box with things like
iTunes and Netflix and that experience is much better than a Sky TV box (which I also own). The Sky User Interface is horrible and buggy and crashy
and slow etc. The Apple TV UI is perhaps a bit simplistic but it is very easy to use and fast and the remote control is super-simple. I hope Apple do
get involved in this market, if only to get other companies "thinking different". It really can be improved a huge amount IMHO for the
benefit of Apple and non-Apple fans alike.
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 27/12/13 at 10:15 PM |
|
|
I can't even imagine what is good enough on TV to justify spending a grand to watch it! 
Are the cast of Eastenders better looking when they're 4' tall in your room?
Forget the TV and go get on with the car!
Bah Humbug!
James
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses, behind the lines, in the gym and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights."
- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
speedyxjs
|
| posted on 27/12/13 at 11:31 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TimC
A grand for a TV? I'd want it to cook me steak and chips and give me a happy ending for that sort of cash.
Now that's a tv Lol! I must admit, i never realized these giant tv's were so popular. Quite happy with my trusty 19" flatscreen
How long can i resist the temptation to drop a V8 in?
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 28/12/13 at 01:10 AM |
|
|
I doubt I'll even bother replacing our telly if it dies - we give £800 a year to sky, plus the tv licence and there's nowt to watch on the
telly.
Sky will be cancelled soon, and the family can have freeview etc.
As for HD, I'm sure Sky have a degraded standard def transmission as our telly with DVD (not Blueray) is so sharp!
Just me being a cynic perhaps - but if they hadn't wanted so much money for 3D a couple of years back, I'd have had one - which I suspect
is the real reason for the lack of market penetration.
We have an 32" LG which has been fine for the last 7 or 8 years.
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
franky
|
| posted on 28/12/13 at 06:32 AM |
|
|
32" is great size. The reason it never took off is that it doesn't look great and that sport, which drives tv technology doesn't
work in it, well the big money ones don't anyway.
Signal quality is varied from show to show and sky's hd box doesn't output as good a pic as a humax freesat box. Although I do a lot of
work for sky I don't have it, just a nice simple freesat box and enjoy the £350-400 a year it saves me.
|
|
|
SCAR
|
| posted on 28/12/13 at 09:39 AM |
|
|
I'm thinking of getting colour
|
|
|
NigeEss
|
| posted on 28/12/13 at 09:51 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hopley89
Don't get plasma .. They are no were near as good as
LED and led will last twice as long
I got on the flat screen bandwagon reasonably early, in 2004 I bought a Hitachi 32" plasma for
an eyewatering £2500
It is still working perfectly and the picture is good even by modern standards. And it has decent
speakers, unlike the very thin LEDs which in most cases are crap.
And as for 3D, I spent a lot of money on laser surgery so I didn't have to wear glasses to watch tv 
[Edited on 28/12/13 by NigeEss]
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.................Douglas Adams.
|
|
|
NigeEss
|
| posted on 28/12/13 at 09:55 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SCAR
I'm thinking of getting colour
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.................Douglas Adams.
|
|
|
zilspeed
|
| posted on 28/12/13 at 11:11 AM |
|
|
I've yet to see any HD flat screen television of any description which beats my Sony KV-25f1 bought in 1994.
|
|
|
Mr C
|
| posted on 28/12/13 at 12:56 PM |
|
|
The Panasonic GT60 is the TV of the moment, delighted with mine. You don't need to be 22 feet away to enjoy it either!!! Plasma do offer some
advantages over LCD particulary the blacks on screen are that much better. It took a bit of fiddling to get the picture settings right, as always
factory settings are not great. Its THX approved which is one of the industries highest standards. go for the THX settings and its good to go. Plasma
is being phased out because of the easier and cheaper methods of mass producing lcd/led screens, not because its technically inferior, grab one and
enjoy it while you can.
http://www.richersounds.com/product/tv---all/panasonic/vi
era-txp50gt60b/pana-txp50gt60b
[Edited on 28/12/13 by Mr C]
Girl walks into a bar and asks for a double entendre, so the barman gave her one
|
|
|
Mr C
|
| posted on 28/12/13 at 01:06 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by zilspeed
I've yet to see any HD flat screen television of any description which beats my Sony KV-25f1 bought in 1994.
Should you be driving with eyesight that bad??...
Girl walks into a bar and asks for a double entendre, so the barman gave her one
|
|
|
jacko
|
| posted on 28/12/13 at 04:25 PM |
|
|
Have you lot got bad eye sight 50ins tv's
|
|
|
HowardB
|
| posted on 28/12/13 at 06:19 PM |
|
|
I managed 15 years without a TV, and now I have one I don't watch it,... well less than an hour a week. So spending the money on something else
would get my selfish vote.
However as a method of keeping the family quiet so I can vanish and work on the car, or what ever the TV is the best thing ever,.. 
Howard
Fisher Fury was 2000 Zetec - now a 1600 (it Lives again and goes zoom)
|
|
|
franky
|
| posted on 28/12/13 at 06:27 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by zilspeed
I've yet to see any HD flat screen television of any description which beats my Sony KV-25f1 bought in 1994.
I can well believe it. Untill last year tube screens were still what the standard was set by. The only reason you can't get them is the cost
of making them..
|
|
|
zilspeed
|
| posted on 28/12/13 at 06:48 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by franky
quote:
Originally posted by zilspeed
I've yet to see any HD flat screen television of any description which beats my Sony KV-25f1 bought in 1994.
I can well believe it. Untill last year tube screens were still what the standard was set by. The only reason you can't get them is the cost
of making them..
The sheer response of a good CRT has taken flat screen technology a long time to catch up with.
Motion blurring isn't even a consideration nor is the thought that a true deep black can actually be achieved.
If I' being honest, I imagine that flat screen technology might be up to speed now, but it's taken a long time to get there.
We all bought into it because it was so space age. If we were honest though, picture quality was a compromise.
If it was better than your old CRT, then that's because your CRT wasn't very good.
In any case, a great deal of the ultimate quality is in the hands of the broadcaster and how much bandwidth they're willing to buy to avoid the
blockiness that no amount of high quality set in your room can do anything about.
If that made any sense at all.
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 28/12/13 at 07:25 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by zilspeed
quote:
Originally posted by franky
quote:
Originally posted by zilspeed
I've yet to see any HD flat screen television of any description which beats my Sony KV-25f1 bought in 1994.
I can well believe it. Untill last year tube screens were still what the standard was set by. The only reason you can't get them is the cost
of making them..
The sheer response of a good CRT has taken flat screen technology a long time to catch up with.
Motion blurring isn't even a consideration nor is the thought that a true deep black can actually be achieved.
If I' being honest, I imagine that flat screen technology might be up to speed now, but it's taken a long time to get there.
We all bought into it because it was so space age. If we were honest though, picture quality was a compromise.
If it was better than your old CRT, then that's because your CRT wasn't very good.
In any case, a great deal of the ultimate quality is in the hands of the broadcaster and how much bandwidth they're willing to buy to avoid the
blockiness that no amount of high quality set in your room can do anything about.
If that made any sense at all.
Plasma displays have been up to speed with CRTs for a while now although LCDs have a bit further to go in terms of responsiveness and black levels in
particular. I had a very high end 36" Panasonic CRT TV immediately before I bought my Plasma and the plasma is far and away a better picture and
performs better in every conceivable way compared to the CRT. Let's not try to kid ourselves that CRTs were perfect. My Dad was a TV engineer
for over 30 years before he retired and there were plenty of problems with them. Fortunately this allowed my Dad to make a good living for all those
years. Think about geometry, convergence, heat, solder joint failures on the various transformers inside. Burn-in issues, warm-up issues, buzzes and
whistles, high-voltage arcing, clipping of the picture due to overscan etc.
Here's an interesting comparison between these technologies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_CRT,_LCD,_Plasma,_and_OLED
Cheers,
Craig.
|
|
|
franky
|
| posted on 28/12/13 at 08:03 PM |
|
|
CRT's still set the standard in ultimate quality though. We(until last year) would use £13,000 sony 17" monitors for checking ultimate
picture quality. The monitors we have to buy now are cheaper(say £5k for a good 17" but still do not match the CRT's and wont for
another 5-7 years. Even a nice domestic CRT is at least as good as what we have to buy now.
I've a 32" plasma at home, I'm hoping it lasts until OLED's come down in price.
|
|
|
zilspeed
|
| posted on 28/12/13 at 08:16 PM |
|
|
We must have been lucky with our Sonys then.
Either that or I must be a fan of the Trinitron tube.
Ultra reliable too.
We had three in our family over ten years and not one of them failed.
We've held onto the KV25.
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 28/12/13 at 08:35 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by franky
CRT's still set the standard in ultimate quality though. We(until last year) would use £13,000 sony 17" monitors for checking ultimate
picture quality. The monitors we have to buy now are cheaper(say £5k for a good 17" but still do not match the CRT's and wont for
another 5-7 years. Even a nice domestic CRT is at least as good as what we have to buy now.
I've a 32" plasma at home, I'm hoping it lasts until OLED's come down in price.
I realise there are specialist devices out there such as the Sony 17" £13000 monitors you refer to but I don't think these would be viable
or desirable as a home cinema TV. Out of interest, what do you use these for?
|
|
|
franky
|
| posted on 28/12/13 at 08:49 PM |
|
|
we use them for picture matching one camera to another, so say 10 cameras looking at the same object, we make them all look the same colour, check
detail levels, focus, dead pixles on cameras etc.
|
|
|
