Slashdot Mirror
HDTV Expert Alfred Poor Tells You What to Buy and What Not to Buy (Video)
Alfred Poor's website is called HDTV Almanac. That's where he talks about the latest HDTV industry news and changes. He also writes about HDTVs and monitors for a variety of industry publications and does some marketing consulting for manufacturers in the field. In this 17 minute video, Alfred tells us what features we should look for in our next TV buy and which ones aren't worth spending extra money on. He also says that for a variety of non-technical reasons, you might want to consider buying your next TV between now and June -- and says you should think about getting a 3D TV even if there aren't many 3D TV shows you want to watch right now.
BUY BUY BUY!!!!
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
I have tested NVIDIA 3D technology with some games at it's awesome! The effect is even more real because you are actually interracting with the world. For example Left4Dead is great with 3D glasses. Now we just need more support from game developers.
Manufacturers really should get over their 3D complex. Sure, they spent a lot on it, R&D and Marketing, but it does more harm than whatever gimmick-value it provides...
Alfred Poor...says you should think about getting a 3D TV... .
Thank you summary, you just saved me 17 minutes by letting me know that Alfred Poor is a tool.
In a couple of lines, what does he say?
This is some guy with a website, with a dull and poorly produced video telling you to buy stuff. I stopped when I got to the part where it says that most people buy smaller TVs than they "need". N-E-E-D.
Now, if he said "people buy smaller TVs than would be AWESOME", okay, fine. But this is basically crass consumerism pumped up by guy who isn't an "industry expert" but rather someone who worked for a crappy rah-rah-buy-stuff computer magazine for 20 years and is trying to trade on that to get some money. That's not wrong in itself, but it sure does translate to being a slashvertisement here.
Two thumbs down.
Poor advice. There is no need for anyone to buy anything beyond a HDTV. This is all marketing BS delivered by a corporate-paid shill.
Due to a (somewhat) rare eyesight condition, 3D doesn't work on me. I have two working eyes, just one doesn't see as well as the other so my vision is way off balanced to the right. I am also fairly near-sighted. Day-to-day, this causes me absolutely no trouble at all. I can't wear glasses (doesn't help), so I make do with just getting closer to things.
Anyhoo, it never stopped me from being able to use a computer. Standard font sizes on standard monitors were fine, I could read them just fine. However, as displays have gotten higher and higher resolutions, I'm finding it harder and harder to read them. My eyesight hasn't got any worse, it's just that things are getting smaller.
Despite all of the advances in Technology for the differently abled, such as DPI settings in windows, it doesn't actually help. Adjusting DPI breaks so many apps that it's more trouble than it's worth. 3D seems to be the big new thing everyone wants you to buy and I can only pray that it fails so badly, people just give up trying to sell it. I worry because if 3D becomes the "standard", there's possibly going to be a shift towards content that is only /i>3D, in much the same way that content has shifted to "HD everything", meaning I'm screwed.
So, for little ol' me, don't buy into 3D. Please.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
This guy must have bad eyes. I have a PS3 & 42" 1080p TV. Ours is probably 8-10 feet away depending on where you sit in our living room. I can easily tell the difference between a Blu-Ray and DVD. In fact, it's a tremendous difference in clarity.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
you need to buy a 3D TV for the most money even though there is little media for it and even though they will be a lot cheaper in a few years when or if there is more media just to be ready for the media. remember you won't be able to buy a 3D TV in a few years when the 3D media arrives so you have to buy it now just to be ready for the arrival
anyone remember maximum PC 15 years ago? they were saying the same thing. buy expensive crap before there is any media just to "be ready". like the hardware is not going to be cheaper when the media arrives. i see the same nonsense now about the upcoming 4K TV's
If you are going to post "advertorial" content SLASHDOT, at least mark it as such. I just lost some respect for this site.
Everybody seems to be bashing this guy as some kind of shill, could some of those same folks please point out some advice that they *would* give credence to?
-- Mojo Tooth : exploring our world as only an idiot can.
My dad purchased his Samsung 55" LCD 3D TV with glasses for $2200. I purchased my Samsung 51" Plasma 3D TV w/ glasses in December for $599 at BestBuy. I always try to find the best deal, not the latest and greatest.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
There is no real technical information here, this video is targeted to the standard consumer, not a slashdot reader.
What I find most offensive though, is that you get 3/4 of the way in before you realize this is really a sales pitch for 3D. Yes, he really wants us to buy 3D so the installed base gets bigger and more content is available. Sorry. I wear glasses, I will never sit down and watch a 3D movie. I just don't care about 3D, nor do I see any sense in spending the extra money for a 3D set. It doesn't make any sense. I still laugh when I think of a 3D TV purchase for my family of four. ... now does this come with 4 glasses? No, just two? Oh, there's a special on extra glasses? How nice. So I pay hundreds more for a 3D set and I need to buy extra glasses.
BTW - this guy is no expert.
Who submitted this shite anyway? Oh, there was no submitter - it's a slashvertisement brought to you by roblimo. Can we have a way to down-mod stories? We've only been asking for that for years and years and years now. It would be better than those stupid anti_social_media buttons.
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
When logged in, go to Options, then Exclusions section. Check the box "Roblimo" and hit save.
No more advertising videos.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Personally I go to the movies to relax and enjoy. I do not go to have things popping up in my face(Insert porn joke here). I am there to be immersed in the story I don' t want to ducking, bobbing and weaving. What is the obsession with 3D, they keep trying to shove it down my throat(Another porn joke). I could get a little subtle depth play, but that wouldn't warrant me paying good money for a new plasma. Regardless of wether the content is there I don't want it.
Either:
a North American game in which a ball is normally carried by hand and passed from hand-to-hand;
The North American game ("Gridiron Football") is so named because when the game was invented, the ball was 12 inches (1 foot) long from tip to tip. The modern ball is 11.5 inches because it makes the forward pass easier.
or:
a rest-of-the-world game in which a ball is controlled and passed by use of foot or head.
The game you're talking about ("Association Football") gets its name from being played on foot. (As opposed to on horseback, like polo.)
Yes, 4K television is under development. ("4K" is roughly equivalent to 4 times the resolution of 1080p, for those not familiar with the term.) I would not recommend waiting for 4K for several reasons. First, people are fine with watching DVDs (which are standard definition) on their HDTVs right now, and don't even bother getting the Blu-ray version of a movie (which is high definition). They tend to sit too far from the screen for its size, which means that they can't see the added detail anyway. They're not going to sit twice as close (or get a set twice as large) in order to get the extra detail that 4K offers. And we're probably at least 10 years away -- if that -- from having a distribution system (broadcast and physical media) that can get the image to your set in the first place. So I'm not going to postpone my purchase just for 4K technology.
Alfred Poor
HDTV Almanac
TItle: Industry Expert Alfred Poor Gives HDTV Buying Advice
Description: There are features you need and some you don't
[00:00] <TITLE>
A "Slashdot TV" logo appears in the bottom left with "An Interview with Alfred Poor of HDTV Almanac" to its right.
"What mistakes do / people make when / they buy an HDTV?" zooms into view.
[00:04] Alfred>
The biggest one they make of all is not buying [...]
[00:06] <TITLE>
A webcam picture of Alfred Poor fades into view.
[...] the right size TV.
A lot of people were trained - I don't know about you, but I was trained, growing up, to not sit too close to the TV - it's going to ruin your eyes.
In fact, I was taught: hold your palm out so that if it covers up the screen, then you're at the right distance.
That's great for the old-fashioned standard definition TV but it's not the right move at all for HDTV.
I try to tell people to think in terms of going to the movies; You don't sit all the way in the back of the theater so that you can cover up your screen with your hand - You want an immersive experience, where you're enveloped by the image.
That's the same thing you want at home.
For most people, they typically get a screen that's a lot smaller than what they really should have.
There are a lot of rules of thumb out there - some of them are wrong, but they basically.. if you're gonna be sitting about 6 feet away, you need at least a 42" screen.
A 47" screen would be even better.
So, that's one of the big mistakes that people make.
Now the prices have come down so much that a larger screen doesn't cost that much more.
So I encourage people to buy probably the next size up from what they they ought to get.
[01:22] <TITLE>
"Are HDTV prices going / to keep on going down?" fades in and out of view. These titles appear throughout the video.
[01:28] Alfred>
Actually, the story is that the prices have been coming down very steadily.
They've been coming down almost 20%/year, for the last 4 or 5 years.
If there's one business that I would not want to be in, it would be manufacturing HDTVs.
It's a brutal, brutal business.
We've seen Pioneer get out of it.
Panasonic is backpedaling, even though they have this huge commitment to plasma screens.
SONY is trying to figure out how not to make their own anymore, just job it all out to somebody else in China.
Philips doesn't make 'm anymore - they've just loaned the name to somebody else to stick on their sets.
On and on and on - it's a brutal, brutal business.
We've got Samsung, we've got LG - you've got a handful who are doing a good job of making a go at it, but they're probably losing a lot of money on it also.
So the price has been coming down pretty steadily.
Will they keep coming down?
Well, each year I say they just can't keep coming down any more than they have, just because you get all the materials' cost.
And yet, they continue to do so.
I think it's gotta slow down - I think we're probably getting near the bottom.
If we see cuts at this point, it'll be more due to distress than increased efficiency.
It will be because there'll be either retailers or manufacturers who are stuck with inventory and trying to get some cash out of it, rather than sit there having to pay interest on the inventory.
Though having said that, we're gonna see a bunch of good opportunities, probably in the next 3 or 4 months, to get some very good deals on HDTVs.
Sears has announced that they're gonna be closing a whole lot of stores, and that could put a whole lot of product into the channel at low prices as they try to liquidate some of that inventory.
Each store is gonna have several of each model on hand.
So you're talking about hundreds of sets right there.
If Sears starts advertising prices that are way low, well Best Buy, Costco, they're gonna have to follow them right down into the mountain, so that they don't give up market share.
[03:44] <TITLE>
What's the HDTV
My tv just failed and I went out and bought a 2011 LED backlit non-3D model on clearance sale ($550 on a $850 MSRP model). I'm really not sure why you would want to pay twice as much for a screen with almost identical specifications but with some added electronics for 3D that are of basically no use today and arguably likely to always be of little use.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Perhaps because some "smart TVs" include 3D support at next to no additional cost.
Uttbuggly, thanks for the question. There's a lot of information (and misinformation) flying around about the relative merits of passive and active glasses. Personally, I don't think that the interleaved issue of passive displays is important; 1080i is also interleaved, and our brains appear to stitch the images together without losing apparent resolution.
But on this subject, I will defer to Dr. Raymond Soneira of DisplayMate. Ray is a "display expert's display expert" and an uncurable empiricist. There's never been a display industry technology assumption that he has not challenged in his labs. And he performed an exhaustive series of real world tests on a set of passive and active 3D sets which he has published -- for free -- on his website at http://www.displaymate.com/3D_TV_ShootOut_1.htm. I recommend that anyone curious about this issue read Ray's report thoroughly. One of his surprising results was that small details -- such as text -- are actually much clearer on a passive set than an active one. This runs counter to the "lost resolution" argument, which is why I love empirical results (and why it's a good thing that I went into computer and display technology instead of high explosives).
And yes, he address the question of brightness specifically in his tests and his report. Comparing the sets in 2D and 3D modes, you do lose lots of light. (This is a big problem for 3D cinema as well.) You start off by losing half the light right off the bat, and then you can lose more depending on the characteristics of the glasses being used. But according to Ray's tests, you lose much more with active than you do with passive, and he explains why that is so.
Alfred Poor
HDTV Almanac
Strack, you get close to that today for less than you might expect. Four inexpensive 20-inch 1080p TVs on a single stand will give you the resolution you seek at much less than the cost of a 40-inch 4K display. Personally, I use a dual monitor setup even though I have a four-monitor stand on hand, and I find that it is plenty of screen real estate for my needs.
Alfred Poor
HDTV Almanac
Kittenman, a ton of money and time is being invested in learning how to convert 2D content to 3D images at a lower cost and faster. Some conversions are done more or less by hand, and take months millions of dollars to convert a feature film. Other technologies -- such as the ones included in some 3DTVs -- can do the conversion in real time. The big difference is the quality of the results. Huge strides are being made in automating the process to create fairly good 3D conversions, and I expect that we'll start seeing lots of back-catalog 2D television episode and movie content become available in 3D within two years or so.
For now, the real time conversion in the TV sets has serious limitations. The demonstrations that I have seen have no negative Z effects (no objects appear to be between the viewer and the screen) and the objects themselves tend to have little or no depth. This means that watching a soccer game (football to the rest of the world) results in cardboard cutouts running around the field. I find that I prefer even this flawed 3D over 2D, because it helps me see the relative position of the players much better, and I can better judge the ball's position across the width of the field. YMMV, but at this point, I would hesitate to recommend that you get a 3D set with the expectation that you'll watch a lot of auto-converted 2D content.
Alfred Poor
HDTV Almanac