Slashdot Mirror
Is It Time to Replace Your First HDTV? (Video)
Millions of Americans bought their first HDTVs between four and seven years ago, because that's when prices for 40" - 50" sets started dropping below $700. Those sets are obviously between four and seven years old now. Are new ones so much more wonderful that it's time to get a new HDTV? Not necessarily. Alfred Poor, long-time display technology expert and senior editor for aNewDomain, has some insight here, which he shares with us in today's video. There's obviously a lot more to discuss about TV technology advances (such as 3d) that we didn't get to today, so look forward to another discussion on this topic in two or three weeks.
When I read about the hackability of smart TV's with cameras, I have to escalate beyond Betteridge to "Hell no!". My present HD TV is just fine, thank you.
You insensitive clod.
It has 1080p and hdmi in. So no.
I've helped a number of family members buy new TVs in the last year or so (they all had old, smaller CRTs). Most of them had heard that you need this or that feature, and that such and such is not very good. I generally explain to them that, while you may see a difference side-by-side, even the lowest end tvs now look pretty darn good. I then show them my 4 year old hdtv, which they love the look of, and explain to them that by today's standards, my tv is technically crap compared to the specs of most new tvs. Thats enough to convince them not to blow a wad of cash, and they've all been happy with the tvs they got.
1 or 2 features that are more trendy rather than useful aren't going to motivate most people to buy something new to replace something else that work perfectly fine, I mean, we're not all apple fanboy idiots.
My new 42" LED backlit screen consumes about 1/3rd the power (50-60W vs 140-150) of my first generation 1080p LCD, it also looks better. I probably wouldn't have upgraded if it hadn't been for a ghosting artifact caused by my HTPC menu getting burned in on the old one but now I couldn't imagine going back.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Why replace perfectly fine 1080p HDTV? Newer ones often simply have more crap and more complicated UI with lots of "value-added" bloatware.
Oh, and my _phone_ has the same resolution as these 50" panels. Why the fuck he's talking about "image quality"? Until we get 4k displays the quality differences are non-existent.
Videos for Internet articles are *Monumentally* Stupid.
They assume we are TV viewers only. 90% of my computer articles are read at random times to take breaks when I'm doing other things on the computer, in environments where audio is unacceptable.
This is just a Dumb assumption.
To me this sounds like a question asking, "what are you going to do with your Walkman?" TVs, and TV-viewing, are quite obsolete. The device you watch anything on now is irrelevant. When you can watch anything you want, any time you want, anywhere you want, why would anyone spend money on a single-use device like a TV to conform to a very outdated form of media consumption?
Companies that base their revenue model on 1980's technological realities are about to wake up to the harsh reality of no revenues. It happened to Kodak, it's happened to the RIAA companies, and it's even now happening to the vaunted Microsoft. And yet, none of the other, related companies, think it could happen to them.
So I must answer the article's question with a question, why would I throw hundreds of dollars into a purchase which can only do one thing (READ: HDTVs), and that only after I have thrown away hundreds of dollars more on a service (READ: cable TV), that I don't need or want?
God, I look forward to the day when the Baby Boomer dinosaurs retard no more social progress for the entire world with their ineptitude and irrelevancy...
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
not as good as my father in law's LG LED TV, but its mostly because his has a better CPU to decode the image
i have a 3d blu ray player and an apple TV connected to mine for all the smart TV crap. 3d blu ray players can be had for $99 at best buy with vudu, amazon, cinemanow, porn, pandora, tunein and lots of other services
If your tv has a 1080p panel and good ATSC tuner (for free ota content) and you are happy with the picture, then no don't get a new one. If it's a 720p panel and is larger than about 32" and you have good eyes and good content (ota HD, HD cable, blurays, etc) then you would probably notice the upgrade.
but it is a 36" Proton CRT with native 720p and 1080i. Lovely picture but it weighs around 250 lbs and wedged so thoroughly into the entertainment center that I might need to cut it out.
We had an old HD TV (4-5 years), that I could have taken to my apartment. It was bulky, and had green and purple bars that would roll across the screen (picture wasn't bad though and the bars were light). The problem was it was so heavy that we needed a dolly to move it. When I moved in, I went and bought a new, bigger HD TV that was light enough I could carry it by myself. If you are moving or have limited space, then a newer TV makes sense with the lighter weight and the smaller form factor of the tv as components get smaller and more capable.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
seriously. 24" computer monitor and fast internet is the way to go. Now if only I could get serious fast internet instead of time warner cable internet.
Got myself a 50" 1080p DLP TV in 2005. I've replaced the bulb twice so far, and told my wife that the next time it needs replacing we'll give it to anyone that's willing to take it. (It runs a little warm and the fan makes it less than quiet for about a half hour after I turn it off. Also the newer TVs are likely much more energy efficient.)
The TV has good picture quality, but the HDMI ports don't work particularly well. Truthfully, I didn't try an HDMI source until about 2-3 years ago. It works fine with component video and VGA.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Is It Time to Replace Your First HDTV?
A lot of TVs a few years ago could only support 720p native and transcoded everything to that resolution, these days most TVs support 1080p native.
This isn't reason to upgrade tho, most content networks still only use 720p or 1080i which is basically the same.
If you use Blu-ray, then you should upgrade the TV.
-7y old
-Tonnes of Inputs but no HDMI
-PIP
-Even has an AV out.
-No name (digi something)
NOBODY wants it.
I don't use my TV's features. I use my media players features through my TV. The media player has much more functionality and is upgradable with just software updates.
720p is still 1280×720 and 1080i(p) is still 920×1080. While older sets are most likely limited to 720p, in the most widely sold 42"-46" tv's, the difference between the 2 is hardly noticeable. If you want internet connectivity a cheap roku functions better than the hideous, never-updated software on most tv's. Finally that leaves us with gimmicks such as 3D which even the industry is moving away from.
In every Slashdot headline with a question, the answer is always No.
Obviously, there is absolutely no need to replace a perfectly good HDTV. Available content with a definition above 720p is unjustifiably rare, and non-HD content still dominates the market. Moreover, series available for download, whether authorized or not, tend to be in 720p resolution and in a lossy format, which introduces all sorts of visual artifacts which are noticeable in HD and full HD formats.
So, where exactly is the need to dump the current HD tv?
I tell you where. Nowhere.
Five years ago I invested in a Samsung television. It's been great and I don't want to replace it. It has the features (120hz) and size (52") I want plus looks nice on the wall. I made sure to get LCD versus plasma to help keep electricity costs down. I held off on buying a DLP because I knew I would grow tired of the volume it would take up in the living room. Research showed that the LCD panel was from a Samsung/Sony plant in South Korea with units having a 3% failure rate versus 5% for its competition. Who looks for an excuse to replace their main television frequently? Not me. If you bought something with the intention of replacing or demoting it after a few years of ownership, by all means spend your money.
Steve
--- rapper/producer/bachelorette party stripper
Single-use as in what, viewing pictures on a large medium suitable for multiple persons?
Cable TV might be going downhill, but televisions as a whole aren't going away. Yes, portable devices exist, but just as the walkman co-existed with the home-stereo (and the discman as well), so can the TV with portables.
For movies, broadcast, video games, or even as large computer monitors... televisions may change somewhat but aren't likely to go away any time soon.
I'm waiting for OLED to drop to 1kUSD. Considering just a few years ago, Sony's 11" screen was 5 figures, and now we have a 55" for 9,999 USD, I may not have to wait much longer.
Is it time to by your first HDTV ?
Don't worry, you'll be losing your near-distance vision sooner than you think, and then you'll enjoy a nice big screen across the room from you.
If you don't have ghosting and don't have light bleeding from the edges then there's really nothing on offer that would provide a compelling case for an upgrade. The "smart" part is normally solved by your much less expensive to upgrade Blu-ray player, 3D is pointless, and who the hell wants a hackable camera for NSA/GCHQ types to enjoy?
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Didn't we just have an article about how all the TV's will have a new HDMI standard with new features?
I'll wait for CEC to improve.
Because I want the football players on my television every Thursday night, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday night to be near life size when I watch them. And not being so selfish, the rest of my family also wants to be able to see the same thing when they watch the same program.
Not a sports fan? Same thing applies for movie buffs.
if you want to post a video discussion of hdtv's online... FIX the audio on your video first... I couldn't listen to it the audio was appalling ...
god damn people save a couple bucks and get a decent audio interface and mic if you are going to do online video interviews...
(tried w/ my Pioneer SE-A1000 headphones w/ a yamaha C-60 premamp as headphone amp (optical out to dac / to preamp ) and with my FiiO E07K/E9 > Kenwood KR-V106R > Monitor Audio Silver S1 speakers and the result is the same not sure what these guys know about video but they know dick about audio apparently.)
blah blah blah... my 5 year old 1080p tv is still fine thank you....for now.
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
His information is a bit out of date. He said 4K Blu-Ray was still in development. However, you can already buy 4K Blu-Ray players. You can also buy a very limited selection of 4K Blu-Ray discs like Ghost Busters. That being said, the prices for all the equipment required is still going to be overpriced for at least a couple more years and there still won't be a whole lot of content available for a couple more years. So wait a couple years before buying into 4K.
... and in the DRM, bind them.
*Looks up at the soapbox*
Um, because I can plug in a PC on one input, consoles on other inputs, and my HD antenna on another, and play games, stream media both from online sources and my media server, and watch TV, all on one screen, from the comfort of my couch?
Not sure if you're planning on consuming all media on your phone/tablet/laptop screen, but I'm pretty sure I'll be much happier consuming mine on a screen 10x the size.
"So I must answer the article's question with a question, why would I throw hundreds of dollars into a purchase which can only do one thing (READ: HDTVs), and that only after I have thrown away hundreds of dollars more on a service (READ: cable TV), that I don't need or want?"
You wouldn't. But amazingly enough, your needs and wants are not universal.
Anyone else here remember quad stereo? 3D TV will go the same way. Just because some is good doesn't mean more is better.
TVs, and TV-viewing, are quite obsolete
If you mean broadcast TV, where a show is "on" at a particular time..I agree
If you mean that watching stuff on a phone, tablet or computer is going to take over..I disagree
My home theater has a large, high quality monitor and a very comfortable chair
It has one use, watching video entertainment whether from streaming, disk or DVR
I would never do computer stuff in my home theater or watch a movie on my computer
Why would I buy seven year old technology when in a couple of years, perhaps even less, I can afford a 4K Ultra High Definition TV technology with 3840 x 2160 pixels (8 megapixels) -- four times that of 1080p televisions, which only offers 2 megapixels of resolution. TCL has already announced it will sell a 4K resolution, 50-in. Ultra High Definition (UHD) TV starting this fall for $999. And Samsung and Sony just announced they're slashing their prices. For 65-inch 4K TVs, Samsung's asking price recently fell from $7,500 to $6,000, while Sony cut its price from $7,000 to $5,500. For 55-inch models, Samsung dropped the price from $5,500 to $4,500, and Sony's prices fell from $5,000 to $4,000. Give it another year or two and they'll also be within reach of the average consumer. Yeah, yeah. There's no content for them. Well, got news for ya. Everything is being filmed in 4K today, from sports to movies and TV shows, it's just not yet being offered yet. When there are televisions to support it, it will be there.
My first flat panel is actually a monitor. No tuner. It made sense because, by 2007, it wasn't like anyone tuned TV directly on their displays. They hooked up to a cable/satellite box or HD Tivo. I've never missed having a tuner on that panel.
Unfortunately, after years of double-duty as a computer monitor and TV, it started to suffer from image persistence. I moved it to video-only duty and it mostly cleared up but now it has a slight, curved shadow around the top edge like the outline of a curved CRT. When I finish my wanderings, I'll replace it. Probably with a big plasma if they still make them. Power consumption's really come down on those and the color can't be beat.
does it still work and does it Not do anything I really need? Any other answer apart from yes,yes then save your money.
This is plainly news for the people who don't care to learn about display technologies, which granted, is clearly the majority. Watching this interview through that lens the content makes sense. But news for nerds, oh hell no!. It is fucking laughable how bad it is.
I replaced my old 60" rear projection set with a newer 70" set last year.
It was a significant improvement to get a larger size and direct view. It also uses a lot less energy.
So I'd say if you are going up 10" in size or swapping some kind of rear projection technology for a direct view it's likely to give an appreciable improvement.
Otherwise I'd hold out for OLED.
God, I look forward to the day when the Baby Boomer dinosaurs retard no more social progress for the entire world with their ineptitude and irrelevancy...
But I bet most baby boomers could have rewritten that sentence so it makes sense.
I use my 47" as a display for my HTPC with Steam BP and Plex. Your misunderstanding is semantics - it may be a "television" but in today's world a more apt term would simply be "display with multiple types of inputs".
An HDTV is a peripheral, not a standalone entity. Much like a printer, it is a single-purpose output device, it just interacts with different devices to different ends. You can hook it to a computer, a gaming console, a DVR/receiver, an antenna, a DVD/BluRay, or in some cases even a VCR.
That said, I'll replace mine when it dies, but only because I have a Netflix-capable and local-stream-supporting BluRay player and a PS3. The real question is whether it's worth buying a TV that doesn't already handle things like Netflix and local streams natively when my HDTV finally bites the dust. And that could well still be a yes, since I probably will be hooking it up to multiple devices that already do these things. Also, I just plain don't care about the illusion of 3D.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Quality is out the window on these and they are going to start dropping out by default anyway. I was looking at Sony and Panasonic for a long time as they have long standing tenure of higher quality tronix....opted for the Panasonic 50" Plasma 1080p goodness. Looks awesome.... just out of warrantee, power supply starts buzzing, got it fixed, few months later same symptom.... TV's used to last a lot longer but that's not good for yearly profit reports... If your not buying a new one every 2-3 years max the corporate engine just isn't going to be happy....you lemmings better not dissappont the 1%ers :P
Tweet, tweet, all id10t's out of the gene pool, open swim is over.
When you can watch anything you want, any time you want, anywhere you want, why would anyone spend money on a single-use device like a TV to conform to a very outdated form of media consumption?
My family watches movies and plays video games on the big screen. Sure we could have tablets and laptops and headphones and use those instead to watch what we want and play what we want... oh wait we do have those.
And we still use the big screen TV. Maybe we're more sociable than you and like to do things together and all of us crowding around a 13" laptop to watch a movie is exactly as stupid as it sounds.
So I must answer the article's question with a question, why would I throw hundreds of dollars into a purchase which can only do one thing
Oh I get it, maybe your TV is broken. You are aware that its not just a dark mirror righ or some avant garde high-art concept piece that just dimly relfects you own life back you? Try plugging something into those holes at the back and turning it on.
Yes, there are actually many uses for a TV besides watching "tv".
9 years ago, we shelled out 4-figures for a 43" Pioneer Plasma. Today, I swing through a Best Buy and HH Gregg once every month or so, and glance at the TV's, and simply put, the LCD's on the market that can match it's picture. (I couldn't care less about 3D). It's the perfect size for our den (sure, it could take a 48", or even a 52", but the 43" doesn't leave me wanting for any more picture).
Got what we paid for: Awesomeness and longevity.
I'm going to go knock on some wood now.
I've never even bought an HDTV yet, still using that good old massively heavy CRT TV.
I keep waiting for a better tech than LCD to come out for TVs because I don't want to deal with dead pixels and low refresh rate/response time/input lag when gaming.
Long answer. Most of my TV channels, even the HD channels, still show well over 50% of only SD quality shows. There is no compelling reason to update perfectly good hardware if it will be years before the content will take advantage of it. It may be a chicken and egg thing, but at this point it looks to me that the smart thing to do would be to wait a hardware generation or two before spending any more money on TVs.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
The device you watch anything on now is irrelevant. When you can watch anything you want, any time you want, anywhere you want, why would anyone spend money on a single-use device like a TV to conform to a very outdated form of media consumption?
Because most new viewing experiences are inferior to a specialized (theatre) or semi-specialized (livingroom, bedroom) venues. If you can enjoy watching TV on a tiny phone scree, or crouched over a laptop, or while holding a tablet, more power to you. I don't enjoy consuming TV content in any of those formats.
I don't watch much TV. When I do, it is not an afterthought to some other activity or location. Thus, a good sized, high-quality TV is the ideal product for me (and probably everyone else who was actually alive in the 80's, which I assume you were not).
Also, watching TV outside of your home is not "social progress". Staring at your phone in general is anti-social.
Christ, I havn't even replaced the CRT yet.
If you were lucky enough to by a big flat panel TV before they were HDCP compatible then you got totally screwed.
To me this sounds like a question asking, "what are you going to do with your Walkman?" TVs, and TV-viewing, are quite obsolete. The device you watch anything on now is irrelevant. When you can watch anything you want, any time you want, anywhere you want, why would anyone spend money on a single-use device like a TV to conform to a very outdated form of media consumption?
Because I like a 60" screen across the room that 5 (or more) of us can watch comfortably to having each person isolated with headphones, or in a separate room holding a tablet or phone to their face.
Just because I *can* watch a movie on my phone in the bathroom or on the subway doesn't mean that I want to.
A TV is no more "single use" than a computer is since there are a lot of different devices I can hook up to it -- including a computer.
I connect my "TV" to a media PC and stream VLC/netflix content to big screen in my living room. Many people also have consoles connected to their screens. Cable TV might be dying, and I will be first one to dance on its overpriced commercial-filled grave, but big screen living room entertainment is not.
I have a friend who decided the family didn't need a TV anymore since everyone was watching shows on tablets or laptops in their own rooms. He walked through the house one evening to discover that his wife and two children were independently watching the same show from netflix in 3 different locations in the house having all started at different times... So now the family doesn't even watch TV together and it uses up 3 times the bandwidth.
My family is similar except that we still occasionally gather around the TV and watch a movie together; or my son and I will watch Top Gear or MythBusters together... Don't worry; we also do plenty of outdoors stuff or creative stuff together too...
It's a big, honking monitor that displays whatever input it receives. In case you didn't notice, your laptop or desktop PC almost certainly have an HDMI output to match the TV's HDMI input. Even a lot of tablets do. You don't need an antenna or cable or satellite connection, any device which can output HDMI (or depending on the unit, DVI, S-Video, etc.) signal will do. Personally I find it uncomfortable to watch movies on a laptop screen or tablet, especially if I'm not the only one watching.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Technically a TV is just a screen with a cable tuner attached to it and screens will not become obsolete until brainwaves reach market maturity. People like you may get rid of the tuner but that will happen automatically the larger PC screens become.
I suppose computer monitors are also obsolete?
Dude, watching a movie on a 4" smartphone isn't "super cool".
TV's arn't going anywhere. If I were a single apartment dweller who never entertained, I'd be inclined to agree that I might never need a big TV and would watch everything on my laptop and/or tablet. But I'm not. The family watches TV together. Groups come over to watch games. Not to mention, hooked up to my 7.1 Onkyo system, I have my own little theater that just isn't replicated by my laptop in my lap. TV's have a long, long future ahead of them.
stuff looks a lot better on a 40" or 50" TV than a tiny phone or tablet screen
i use my ipad and iphone to watch in the kitchen, as a secondary set if my wife is hogging the big one or on the train to work.
Okay smart ass, How are you going to display your media (ir-respective of actual broadcast device/mechanism) on a device that is at least 50" in size to fit a normal sized room and more than one or two people can watch your ubiquitous media selection?
That answer is 95% of the time an HDTV. Yes it is a single use device, with built-in crapware because they have not made it any better in the last 5-8 years except drop the price and sell a new one based on features. Until you can have 20 of your closest friends over and watch a football game (over the air, antenna) while watching a 9" tablet or 15" laptop, get off your high flipping horse.
Who still consumes the majority of content on televisions? At least the demographic that advertisers care about. And most people aren't upgrading their computers/notebooks let alone even thinking about upgrading their televisions.
Are you seriously arguing aginst large screens? TVs aren't tied to cable, ya know.
I have 4 portable devices with screens ranging between 4 and 17 inches diagonal that I can take with me anywhere, and all of them can stream almost all of my content. Do you know which one of them I use when I get home from work and want to watch Netflix? None of them. Why would I want to balance a tiny screen on my lap to watch a movie when I can watch it on the 46" HDTV that's already hooked up to my speakers?
TVs are hardly an "outdated form of media consumption". If anything, HTPCs are making them MORE relevant than ever.
Just because it is old, maybe 3 years, and newer ones are better doesn't mean it needs to be replaced.
I don't just get an "ohh shiny" new tv because it is newer.
When it breaks in maybe 5 years from now I might replace it.
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
I was a late adopter of hdtv, but then I realized that it can go a week or two between the times I watch TV.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Give. Me. A. Break.
Because sometimes anything, any time, anywhere, isn't optimum.
Quality requires exclusivity. That's not an absolute rule, but pretty close.
You don't go around a race circuit fastest in a minivan, so if you like racing you should get a vehicle that does it better. It may be shit for all other uses but the quality of the exclusive experience makes it worth the investment.
Even if my girlfriend wanted to fuck me anywhere, any time, the quality of the experience would be enhanced by taking some time off and going to a nice, peaceful, private place where I can concentrate on her, exclusively.
Music can and is enjoyed anywhere, any time. But NOTHING compares to actually disconnecting from the wired world and sitting in a good concert hall, listening to an orchestra do what it does so well.
I could go on with a hundred more example. Just like all of them, TVs have a place. Yes, I can suck down media content anywhere, any time, but sometimes I actually like to FUCKING PAY ATTENTION to the movie on a big screen in a dark room with a superior sound system, sitting in a comfy chair with no interruptions.
What sort of distracted ass would ask "Why have a TV?" Is there nothing you think is worth doing well? Or is a half-assed look all you need?
People who ask this question would be just as happy with a poster of a Picasso thumbtacked to their wall as with the experience of seeing it in person. I feel sorry for them. No matter what generation they're from or what generation they feel entitled to insult, they need to learn to appreciate art...not just consume it willy-nilly, without thought, without quality but happy as a clam because they can accomplish such consumption while simultaneously washing clothes and updating Twitter.
You don't know what you're missing. Please, no matter what your age, grow up and figure it out.
God, I look forward to the day when the Baby Boomer dinosaurs retard no more social progress for the entire world with their ineptitude and irrelevancy...
You should have a five-minute conversation with an average young person.
You don't have a big computer monitor at home?
Why I still go to the movies. Bigger is, in fact, better.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
It seems that at least with HDMI, most TV manufacturers have finally figured out what 1:1 mode is (though it's not enabled by default, which is still stupid). However, most HDTVs I've seen still have at least 40ms input lag, which is pathetic. (For comparison, I've used a Dell 1701FP LCD from 2001 that had virtually no input lag, on VGA.)
I think the main attraction to newer sets is embedded support for common services such as netflix. It is an aesthetic choice that eliminates another box on your TV stand. (or the TV stand altogether if you're using a wall mount.)
Power consumption and viewing angles have all improved with the advent of better LCD technology, eliminating the need for power guzzling plasma displays, which turned out to be more of a stop gap than anything.
With the advent of chromecast, network enabled Blu Ray Players, roku etc. it is easy to add that functionality to an older setup, so if you're happy with the display quality then that's a cheaper alternative.
As for myself, I have a 1080P DLP projector and a 150" screen, which is the most theater-like experience possible at home. The projector is independent of whatever I plug into it. Currently there is only a Blu Ray player connected to it. A good choice if you treat your television as a home theater and only watch feature films on it at the highest quality possible, a bad choice if you want to flip on the set and watch something with all the lights on or during the day with a lot of windows.
I bought an inexpensive network enabled blu-ray player for my girlfriend and she pretty much exclusively uses it for netflix and pandora radio. She absolutely loves the on-demand nature of it, and the fact that it's a very small, unobtrusive box. her living room is very zen and she likes to keep the electronics clutter down to a minimum.
In short, if you want all-in-one functionality and the latest thin aesthetic and thinner bevels, it would be worth one more 2K TV buy as actual affordable 4K sets and widespread 4K content is a LONG ways off.
I kind of planned it that way. I just getting tired consuming so much crap cause I need another big fucking TV screen to see movies and shit for fuck sake. I love sounds and movies but I fucking hate advertisments inmyfuckingfaceallthefuckingtime telling me I need a new FUCKING SCREEN!!
There! I said it.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
We are not yet at the point where we can "watch anything we want, anytime you want, anywhere you want." We could be, and were getting there, but were not.
Disclaimer: I was not including piracy as a means of acquiring media.
i will buy a new "tv" when i can swap it with my reading glasses ... one can dream : >
AND fall asleep with them on without them pressing on my jugular
and cutting off the blood flow to my brain.
ahhh
Summary:
- 4K is coming, but not here yet (no good ways to get content)
- Unless you have the right viewing conditions, you won't see a difference with 4K
- There are Smart TVs, but you can get a cheap add-on box (or Wii/Xbox) to get the same content
- Sets are cheaper, so you can upsize if you want
My own thoughts:
- New sets use much less power (like 60W vs. 200W for a 42" set)
- New sets often have few analog inputs (often just 1 combined component/composite input)
- Audio quality has suffered from cost-reduction in cheaper sets
even if i did its better watching media on a couch on a TV than sitting up in a chair
Does it work ?
Yes: don't replace
No: replace
problem solved
Okay. What are you going to do with your large-format computer display that you can view from a comfortable position on the opposite side of the room with a bunch of other people?
It still has plenty of uses even if you don't watch any conventional TV. I use it for watching movies with the family (either commercial ones or ones I've filmed myself). Same for photos/slideshows. I also have a computer hooked up to it and a wireless keyboard/mouse pad combo for controlling it across the room. Being able to watch TV is just a bonus.
Sure, it's only 720p, but a $90-ish Roku will add most of the features an $800+ Smart set would have (except for the 1080p), and I'm still getting better black and contrast than the new thin LCD/LED sets.
Design for Use, not Construction!
I had several tube 4:3 HDTVs which I purchased for a lot of money in 2000. I am slowly phasing these old 1080i beasts out of my life. One of them took 3 people to lift and carry out.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
*That's obviously supposed to be "the LCD's on the market can't match it's picture.
Sigh.
If you have piles of money lying around, you could "get ahead" and buy a 4k HD TV, they are pretty spectacular...though moreso if you were to use it on your PC. AFAIK there aren't any 4k TV channels around yet.
How about this, forget TVs, use your PC, get a 4k monitor and live with that, what could go wrong...?
if your whole economic system is based upon consumer spending, it kind of helps if you have consumers with $$$$ to spend.
oh, wait. D'OH!
Like others have observed TV's aren't really single use devices. The various roles they fill of course can be done by a variety of other devices in some shape or form. Personally we have a TV so that we can watch things together as a family. Also my eye sight is getting worse as I age and so having a nice big screen makes for less eye fatigue. Watching short videos and such on phone and tablet size screens is bad enough, I can't imagine trying to watch an entire movie that way. We also do not subscrib to cable or satelite TV services. We have a cable modem for internet service and through that we get netflix which streams very nicely through our bluray player.
All that said I don't plan to replace my current HDTV until it stops functioning properly. I did the same with the previous TV and it lasted nearly a decade, hopefully I'll get similar millage out of this newer one.
What's obsolete about a device that I can hook up 3 or 4 other devices to in order to consume whatever media I want whenever I want? With an HDTV I can surf the net from my laptop (with a huge screen), watch blu-rays, watch Netflix, watch Crunchyroll, play a game from any number of consoles, play music from any number of services.
Just.. What? What are you even talking about? You're so desperate to sound hipster that your argument is off the scale of stupidity.
While we're fixing things: "the LCD's on the market can't match its picture."
I would really like to replace my Westinghouse 37W1, since the backlight is separating, but there's nothing I can find like it. It does not have a tuner, since I have no use for one, but it has a more-then-complete set of discrete inputs (2 HDMI, 2 component, S-Video, Composite, and SVGA), so my receiver can switch between my sources and the monitor just handles the output. It's like speakers (converts electricity into sound), but for images.
Forget TVs. I bought a Benq projector for $900 and it's just like going to the movies. 120 inches on a blank wall, bright enough to watch even when the lights are on (but awesome in the dark) and the real sense that you're watching a movie that you can't get from TVs. Plug in a Roku or Playstation and you're all set. And at that size you can tell a real difference between DVD and bluray. I may never own a TV again.
It's a display. It's only limited by what you plug into it. If you don't have any imagination, then you will end up with a lame result.
If your old one is still working, there's probably no good reason to get rid of it and contribute to the volume of your local garbage dump.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
If you have an electronic product that has lasted 4 to 7 years, keep it! It's a keeper. Most electronics are junk that goes bad after a year or so. If yours hasn't, you have a quality item that you need to keep as long as possible. I have an LCD monitor from the late 1990s that is going strong, and you better believe I'm going to hang onto it as long as I can. My Creative MuVo is going strong after 5-6 years. I wish I had bought a stack of them, but I didn't notice when they were discontinued.
I prefer people on the TV to be smaller than me so I can pretend I am a giant and lord it over them. Bow to me, tiny Bryan Cranston. Tremble, tiny Michael C Hall.
Seriously, as long as I can understand the story and see what's going on and, preferably, hear the dialogue without people mumbling, I'm happy.
That's why I made sure to get a TV that had a VGA input.
Nope.
Sorry, Dice, I do not come here for multimedia. But I will come and bitch about it in the comments (wasting resources is my revenge).
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
That is a logical absurdity. If they can rewrite it then it doesn't need to be rewritten as it already adequately conveys the intended meaning.
The changes you seek are superficial and meaningless.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Not necessarily so much. At the distance I hold my phone up while watching, it occupies about the same angular space as the TV at its much further distance (actually just a hair more). The resolution is less but between effects such as Netflix compression degrading the picture and being slightly short sighted, it's pretty much a wash.
We are certainly at the point where we can watch whatever we want when we want. We have been for a number of years now. The fact that the Apple Cult hasn't caught up with the times does not alter this. Piracy isn't required. Merchants will happily sell you stuff and suitable tools are plentiful.
The idea that piracy is required is just fanboy nonsense.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
And yet, people aren't just doing Netflix on their tablets and smartphones, they're doing Netflix on their HDTVs as well. Or Hulu Plus.
So no, the HDTVs aren't obsolete because people want to do stuff together. Gathering a family around a 15" 1080p laptop screen? No way. I'd much rather do it on the nice 60" big screen so we can spread out on the nice comfy sofa or chairs.
Likewise, I'd rather play video games on the big screen (though I do a lot of mobile gaming because well, it's "with me").
"TV" as in TV content is no longer cable based, network based or time based, but gathering around a big screen to do something together like watch a movie? That's fairly timeless (even in the days before TV - people would gather around the family radio).
I hate my HDTV. It is a Vizio and was purchased about three years ago. It's like a throwback to the 60's when I was a kid. Back then you turned on your TV, and then you had to wait awhile for it to warm up before you could see a picture. Changing channels required getting up from the chair and walking across the living room. Which, beyond being a pain in the ass, was time-consuming. Now I can have the same 1960s convenience with my HDTV. When you turn it on it takes at least 20 seconds to do -- what?, I don't know, boot up? Then another few seconds for sound. Except for those times when the sound won't come on for some reason, which means starting the whole process over again. Changing the channel is equally annoying. I have a remote, so I don't have to get up, but it takes just as long. It's probably five seconds between channel changes. And sometimes it skips a couple of channels. Occasionally, it seems to get mixed up about what to do, and just shuts itself off. I really miss my old analog television. HD looks nice, but it's not worth the frustration.
Proverbs 21:19
I am guessing that you don't watch very often with other people. Granted most consumption will occur on smaller personal screens, but large TV's (or projectors) will always have a place in viewing sports and movies when more that one person watches together.
I'm waiting for glasses-free 3D TVs to reach the sub-$1,000 range. Preferably a 60" mid-range model for $800-$900 retail (on sale, obviously). I have zero interest in "smart" TV's since I already have a HTPC, and since I wear glasses myself there is no way in hell I would buy a 3D TV that required active/passive glasses to be worn over them. I figure that 4K TVs should be affordable 5-7 years after I buy the glasses-free 3D TV in time to replace that purchase. Meanwhile, my 46" Panasonic plasma is working beautifully.
What makes you think they won't put a hidden camera and microphone in the ALL the TVs.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
http://xkcd.com/732/
Incidentally, my LCD monitor from 2004 is still great for HD video.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Our living room still has a Standard Definition TV, not an HDTV. Money is tight and I don't see the reason for ditching a perfectly good working television set to upgrade to the latest/greatest. We have a Roku and DVD player so that we can view streaming media and DVDs. My wife's and my bedroom has a smallish HD set but only because the SD set in there died and that's what's on the market now. When my living room SDTV dies, we'll upgrade to an HDTV set, but not a minute sooner.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I'm a godless heathan Communist you insensitive Capitalist pig!
Sell me another one on how me spending a measly $400-500 is gonna save the economy!
My old HD TV was a 1080i CRT model.
Still using a 42" tube tv that I bought in college. 2001, I think?
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
How did this clown get modded up? Seriously?
When you can watch anything you want, any time you want, anywhere you want, why would anyone spend money on a single-use device like a TV to conform to a very outdated form of media consumption?
Outdated by whom? I hate to break it to you pal but in the 1st world nations TV is still the king of media. It'll continue to be for a very long time. Most of the fancy technology you're hinting at is nothing more than TV output with a new way to handle the media and regardless if you're using a smart phone, a tablet or a TV you're basically consuming the same content. Is YouTube magically outdated because I'm watching it on my 46 inch Samsung versus an iPad? Not at all.
Sorry that you fooled yourself into a false sense of superiority.
Companies that base their revenue model on 1980's technological realities are about to wake up to the harsh reality of no revenues.
Ain't happening. Again, TV is #1 method of content delivery in the industrialized world. Unlike the other entities you've mentioned the content providers have already figured out a scheme... bundling. Kodak can't bundle. Music publishers can't bundle. MS can bundle and does but there are pros and cons to their system. Content providers, on the other hand, are nearly all monopolies. And not the kind of "monopoly" that your average fanboy cries about when we're talking about Microsoft but a real monopoly. In my area and many areas in the US you can't find two decent content providers in the same physical location.
My choices are Comcast or Verizon when it comes to internet. Verizon is offering 3Mb DSL and Comcast is offering 30Mb. Both providers offer bundled home voice and TV content. While the land line is lossing tons of ground it makes no real difference in your price if you do or don't carry it and internet only service is expensive. Unless you're not watching any TV content at all it's not even worth it to go without a dedicated set top box. And if you do decide to do without TV? You're still looking at paying Comcast if you want an acceptable broadband connection today. They got you from every aspect unless you plan on someone burning your beloved TV shows from their home and shipping them to you. At that point I think we can dismiss the notion that you're seriously talking about the bulk of humanity.
So I must answer the article's question with a question, why would I throw hundreds of dollars into a purchase which can only do one thing (READ: HDTVs), and that only after I have thrown away hundreds of dollars more on a service (READ: cable TV), that I don't need or want?
Ok. So the discussion is not really that TV is obsolete but that you don't want it unlike 95% of the rest of the population. I guess so but that's like me saying "As a vegetarian, meat is obsolete." That works for me but I'd be stupid to act like the beef industry is going to dry up anytime soon. You're living in a fantasy land where you think your sole attitude towards the medium is reflected by any significant portion of the population.God, I look forward to the day when the Baby Boomer dinosaurs retard no more social progress for the entire world with their ineptitude and irrelevancy...
Every generation says the same crap. Every generation turns into the dinosaurs that they detested in their youth. If you think that it's baby boomers who are the major players in the land of cable content delivery I'd like to tell you that you're dead wrong. Baby boomers certainly are significant but I don't know any 20-something out there who is going out of their way to avoid content providers. As I stated above, I don't even know if you can avoid the content providers, at least for the vast majority of USians.
. . . and guess what? It doesn't affect my life one bit!
There is a guy a few pages up who is willing to GIVE AWAY his DLP television. You should take him up on his offer.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If this guy is considered an "expert" in HDTV & TVs in general (Anybody buy a standard def tv recently? Think he still gets a lot of call for new 32" tubes?) then I am also an expert! I'm here to answer all your questions.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As with most "question" headlines, the answer's probably "no".
TVs are cheap, and usually of extremely high quality. If you've got a nice HD picture, no ghosting, and good color - fuck it, don't fall for their "you need to upgrade to the current tech" nonsense.
You DON'T.
3d is silly, btw.
-Styopa
and there are millions of us out here. my 02 model 54-incher is juuuusssssttttt fine, thank you.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Why I still go to the movies. Bigger is, in fact, better.
I wonder how many people would go to the movies if the same content was available at the same time on their home TV setup.
Today, I swing through a Best Buy and HH Gregg once every month or so, and glance at the TV's, and simply put, the LCD's on the market that can match it's picture.
That's largely because the majority of retail stores don't even try to calibrate their monitors properly. This, combined with the poor signal quality coming from the 48-line splitter (or however many times they split the line) and even the untrained eye can see the degregation.
The issue I have is that the manufacturers aren't making the same quality of mid size panels (e.g. 32-inch) as they are for 42-inch+ panels. Due to the WAF, my TV's size is limited to whatever can fit into our entertainment center and 32" is the largest we can fit. I returned a Toshiba monitor that I picked up on sale which had CEC and ARC, but the picture quality wasn't up to my standards and I swapped it out with a Samsung that was on sale. We won the panel lottery with our Samsung (I believe it's the UN32EH5000), but the trade-off for picture quality was lack of CEC and ARC.
That being said, I consider the money well-spent after upgrading from a 6-year old Visio LCD television. The picture quality was so poor on the Visio by the time we upgraded where we were missing complete scenes in some movies (e.g. Jötunheimr in Thor) and certain video games required standing at awquard viewing angles to overcome the lack of contrast.
You're the only dinosaur here. "TV" is synonymous with "large, medium-resolution monitor" these days.
People gathering together to enjoy socializing while viewing an entertainment program is pretty normal in most people's estimation. It has been for thousands of years in the form of live-action theater and musical performances. Now, nearly anyone can host this type of gathering at their home with a large-format display of some sort.
Your "irrelevant" devices are more linked to the delivery mechanism rather than the display itself. Unfortunately for you, this article/summary/discussion thread is all about the display itself, not the media delivery.
You lack reading comprehension skills. Dinosaur.
tl;dr: ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER! DO YOU SPEAK IT?
Your 9 year old Pioneer plasma isn't real 1080p even if it accepts a 1080p signal. That era suffered from color fade, and surely uses 2-3x the power of any current set. Even a $600 plasma today will better it.
One thing annoys me, on my otherwise excellent LG 37" 720p LCD screen, and that's the fact that it only has one HDMI port. This has caused me some grief over the years when experimenting with media computers running xbmc. Okay, one other complaint is that the PVR I have comes up in 480i mode by default, but the screen doesn't support 480i so I have to jump through a few hoops to configure it for 720p.
Salut,
Jacques
f-f-f-aggot
Your 900 line '1080p' plasma can't even compare with budget displays today.
A "TV" isn't really a TV anymore. Back in the bad old days I had one box in my living room. It received an analogue signal from outside, decoded that into a video and an audio stream, it displayed the video and it played the audio. The properties required to do each of these functions is quite different. Good audio requires speakers all around the room and a pretty big amp box (because of power requirements). Good video display requires a big but flat screen with high resolution and a single video input (if the amp handles switching, or lots of video inputs if not). Digital video decoding options are changing fast, so the equipment that was good 5 years ago is no good today (the analog signal is gone, internet services like Netflix have arrived as have wireless computer-to-TV methods like the Apple TV and the Google Chrome thingy), and what's good today will probably not be good 5 years from now. What I want in my living room now is a screen, like a computer monitor. The TV I bought 5 years ago is a good screen, with the right inputs, and I don't see that situation changing in the next 5 years (not until/unless 4K becomes widespread).
Laptop screens often have horrible off axis characteristics. They aren't really designed to be viewed by more than or person at once,
. . .I hold my phone up while watching. . .
Yet another reason why watching something on a phone/tablet is less enjoyable than watching a TV.
Mobile devices are fine only when mobility is worth the sacrifices. Otherwise, give me something optimized my actual use case.
My TV has bad caps. Sigh.
If I had cash to burn, it would be something in the Sony HMZ line. Still need a TV for group watchings, but if its just myself the OLED screen on these is beautiful and wonderfully immersive. 3D actually works on these (zero crosstalk). In the next year or two, there will be some more competition in the area and even better screens. Wifi video transfer holds back the resolution currently (720p), but having an unteathered experience opens up the options.
This makes much more sense to me- if your TV still works, keep it and get an upgrade that gives you more options and a different experience. Chances are you are the only one that really cares about screen quality in your household anyway.
Anonymous so I don't get branded a Sony fan.
I didn't pay that much (nor was it that long ago), but when my previous "HD" TV died I read up on TVs. LCD/LED was all the rage, but things were still couched in terms of how close they approached the picture quality of a plasma TV. I paid $1000 for mine and it was well worth it as well. Sure, it takes more juice than an LCD or LED display, but it can also display darker images well and you don't have to be dead center on the screen to get a decent image.
Friends and family have bragged about the picture quality of their newer LED displays, but none of them have as good a picture or color, or even hold up to viewing off angle.
Yes, just like a CRT you get ghosting and the residual lasts for a while. And, as noted, it takes more power. Nothing is perfect. But for quality viewing I much prefer plasma.
Why is this a video? They guy talks about 1/4 the speed I can read at and I'm not a fast reader.
Smart input. When i switch on my xbox... the teevee sees a signal suddenly come online on HDMI 2 & switches over to it automatically.
Aspect ratio button on the remote: Since none of the teevee networks can wrap their head around the idea of aspect ratios... give me a button on the remote that cycles through the 5 or 6 standard layouts.
Buttons on the front of the teevee... (not on the side or back)
Picture-in-picture. We had the technology 30 years ago... why cant we do it today?
The mute button should be the largest button on the remote... not power.
NO MORE BLUE LED's
In fact.... no LED's on the front of the unit AT ALL... i can tell when the thing is on.
Easily accessible and replaceable backlight.
Won't somebody think of the LCDs?
And have been since the early 1980s.
Anybody else bothered by the fact that the guy who interviewed Alfred didn't have a basic understanding of the difference between bitrate and resolution in regards to the what Alfred said about the quality of video data that cable companies provide as of now and that he had to explain compression to him?
hah, I don't really watch broadcast/cable/satellite T.V. I do watch old TV shows from the 80s and 90s on my computer (old pound puppies and Thundercats, Disney afternoon cartoons). I still have a 17 inch LCD monitor from like 2006. I get the news from online websites and local AM radio. I feel old. lol I guess I should say my gadgets are kinda old. well, you get the idea.
+1, except "the LCDs on the market can't match its picture."
I don't understand this attitude at all. Film/TV is a highly visual medium, if you use an inferior output device you are sabatoging your own experience.
I get that it doesn't really matter for things like standup comedy or talk shows, but it makes me sad to know that people are watching aesthetically beutiful shows like Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones on mobile devices. Your loss I guess.
Me , for one. The popcorn is better, the screen is bigger & better, the sound ditto.
You asked.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
You youngies need to get big old "daddy chairs" like us old guys have. And big TVs. And cute wives. Ahh..... life is GOOD!
As one who purchased one of the very FIRST HD sets ( you know. . . . the ones that came out BEFORE HDMI became a standard ) I can tell you with some certainty I will never buy anything that new ever again. I'll let it age a bit, let the bugs get sorted out and let the price come down. Then I'll think about it.
Kinda like video games actually . . . lol
Agreed re cable TV. I need to wean my wife from a few cable-only shows, then we'll have Internet and over-the-air TV with a two-tuner media PC behind the TV and a wireless keyboard to control it. Savings? Maybe $75/month. would be more except for the damn bundling crap the cable/ISP providers insist on. Damn thieves. $75 for fairly quick Internet alone, with all the crap they load on it. I don't *need* tech support and their email and "webspace." Give me a connection, keep it working, and leave me alone. Bet they could charge me $20/month and make money. (mutter mutter mutter)
That could very easily be the last TV that I ever buy. It's been more and more irrelevant as time goes on -- neither next generation of console interests me, cable's a vast wasteland of uninteresting programming and anything that IS interesting can be found on the Internet with more convenience and less expense. If I need something to look at when I'm in the living room, maybe I could take its guts out and turn it into a fish tank.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I play porn on it and masturbate while wearing a ski mask.
That way everybody wins.
Anybody think this would have been a lot more interesting if the interviewer didn't interrupt Alfred to interject with his own opinions at every turn?
I'm a fairly earlier adopter. A good reason to upgrade my DLP HD TV would be to get some better connectors (like say HDMI). But the next gen is a 4K OLED. It has higher resolution (but no content) with real black blacks. But they cost an arm and a leg. When those TVs come down, it will be time to upgrade.
Am I the only one who thinks today's "smart" TVs are tomorrow's BotNet?
These are the same manufacturers that stop creating security patches for phones after a couple years. The "smart" TV software is going to be unsupported just 2 years into a 10 year life. And many of these things come with cameras and microphones. The NSA never had it so good!
I am still using my 19.5" Sharp CRT from January 1996. It still works as of last night. I will replace it when it dies/starts having problems.
Also, Jesus Christ rocks. :)
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
"Now if you're playing the movie on a telephone..."
The industry would LOVE for you to buy another round of hardware, but WHY ?!?! I'll wait until I can get 4k ultra-HD compatible hardware rather than spend money on stuff that will be outdated and obsolete in just a couple of years.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
The best HDTV you can purchase is LED with LCD back lighting. You have to investigate the HDTV to ensure it's a full LCD
backLighting and not just side lighting with baffles to spread the light, sometimes it takes a lot of digging.
The best 3D is through Flicker glasses or one who's lens blink alternately. Mine are battery operated.
would cost a fortune replacing them if I used that option a lot. If you go 3D make sure they are rechargeable or USB power cord.
I purchased a HDTV recently and researched them first to be sure I got the right one. Only to purchase one when Costco dropped them
from $1000 to $300. I thought I made the right choice as well as it's a 600Hz. but a no return purchase.
The key is 24 fps, HDTV's resolution needs to be divisible evenly by 24 or "tricks" have to be used; 600Hz was so I was happy,
3D games were possible only to find out I fell for Panasonic big lie.
It's actually a 60 HZ, a plasma fires 10 times a second, so they multiply that by 60HZ = 600HZ to Panasonic.
My 3D games come in at 30 FPS. Plasma is the best picture but nobody mentioned white is 105 F, during the
summer the HDTV and air conditioner have a stand off. Then there's the burn in and a 100,000 hour life time of the screen.
While it comes across as a lot of time, it's dimming from day one.
My Panasonic TC-P42GT25 also can't be calibrated the contrast breaks at 30%, it's actually too dark to view, I have it on game or vivid mode
(very bright) to see. It's a "smart TV" so I can watch Netflix, youtube, HULU, what have you; but the processor can barely run Netflix - captions aren't an option.
Weary be the purchaser of a HDTV.
Here's a PDF that may help some- Display Myths Shattered: How Monitor & HDTV Companies Cook Their Specs
www.hephnertv.com/pdf/DisplayMythsShattered.pdf
Replacing my old 4x3 36" tube hdtv (that was about 105lbs) with a 48" lcd was a good move once a majority of programs were broadcast in widescreen. Now replacing a 4inch thick 48" lcd with a 50inch 3 inch think led does not seem worth it. Not wasting any extra for a 3d set, that fad was done 3 years ago.
I'm still using a 24" CRT tv, no HD whatsoever, I'll replace it with a 40" HD when they start appearing on the side of the road for free, I would only buy one if I used it all day every day such as for work but for a couple to 3 hours every night after work it's not even worth the hassle. I might consider a second hand one on a $4 per week plan at some stage, that's almost at the level of picking one up off the side of the road.
Besides, any self-respecting slashdotter has their own HTPC
So would users such as hawguy, ratbag, and adolf not be considered "self-respecting"?
you can also get a dumb display of competing size and resolution for much, much less.
Would such a dumb display allow hearing the audio carried on the HDMI port? Would it work with my existing low-definition (classic video game consoles), standard-definition (non-HD cable channels), enhanced-definition (Wii), and ATSC (U.S. terrestrial broadcast video) sources?
It's like when game developers started making co-op games on computer...it took them decades to realize that people like playing games together, despite people doing the same thing in arcades in the 70s and 80s
What took decades was availability of computer displays big enough to fit two to four people around. From 1987 when the VGA came out to 2007 when HDTVs became affordable was "decades". During that period, the only way to view PC video on the big screen without opening the case was through a scan converter, an obscure device that converts VGA to composite video.
Are video games more like computer stuff or like a movie to you? Would you play them on the home theater or on the computer? I'd probably guess computer if they're mouse and keyboard, or home theater if they're in a more gamepad oriented genre.
Most HDTVs are also computer monitors. You can plug a PC in and use it to watch movies or play video games.
But it's a bit harder to send HDMI through the wall if the family PC is in one room and the TV monitor is in another room. I've read Slashdot comments that show a general unwillingness among the non-geek public to plug and unplug the PC or to buy or build a second PC for the living room.
We are certainly at the point where we can watch whatever we want when we want. We have been for a number of years now. [...] Piracy isn't required. Merchants will happily sell you stuff
"Certainly" is a strong word. So where can a U.S. resident lawfully download or stream the film Song of the South and the TV series Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea?
... i mean seriously, at least in my country there is virtually no programming on terrestrial tv (which is what most people use), so why would I as an average joe who maybe watches tv when eating lunch alone, need a ultra-hd tv, and I'm not even starting with 3d here ...
This hits close to home, since I have a 7 year old 37" 1080i HDTV I am considering replacing. It works perfectly fine and I love it, but the biggest issue is that it only has 1 HDMI port. It seems every media device has an HDMI port now, whereas it wasn't as common when I purchased the TV. So that leaves me needing a switch, which confounds the other TV users in my house as they have to manually press a button next to the TV to switch from gaming to Roku to cable.
My TV also lacks a tuner, which is proving problematic when considering cord-cutting. I can buy an external tuner (with an HDMI out!), but so far I haven't found an ATSC HD tuner with an HDMI out for less than $100. At that point stretching to $350 for an another TV of the same size with more HDMI ports and an ATSC tuner doesn't seem like an outrageous proposition. The old TV becomes a monitor or a Roku station in the guest room.
That being said, my foresight on the need for HDMI ports was crap back in 2006. Am I alone on that?
The advantages of big screen and better sound are more than trashed by the bozos behind me crunching potato chips in my ear, and the inability to pause when I have to pee right when the movie's getting good.
And the popcorn tastes like crap.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Such a chore...
If I used it anything like as much as the TV, I'd use some kind of stand. The complaint was about the picture quality.
I watch it on TV. I just don't see the need to have the people on the screen be the same size as me (which will also be dependent on their distance from the camera, zoom and other things in any case).
I have a 720p infocus IN21 projector that I bought second hand on a whim for £200 with a spare bulb. I have it projecting onto a 10 foot wide screen (i don't know what the diagonal is) and even at just 720p it's like being at the cinema. At our local multiplex the smallest screen is about twice the width of this and I can't see that it looks better. The picture is astonishing. god knows what a 1080p projector would look like. I got a cheap onkyo txnr-414 5.1 surround system and some cheap pioneer speakers and it's fucking amazing. I would never bother to buy a tv now. One day I might get a 1080p 3D projector but only once the price comes right down. But then I don't really watch TV, just movies and the odd computer game, and i have the benefit of a 20 foot x 10 foot room which can be lit gently at one end only if necessary.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
I can't see the interviewer, but judging from the voice, this is like watching the two old guys in the balcony on the Muppet Show talk about 21st century technology. They are probably both very knowledgeable about this stuff, but even this baby boomer wonders about their perspective.
God, I look forward to the day when the Baby Boomer dinosaurs retard no more social progress for the entire world with their ineptitude and irrelevancy
Nice flamebait, asshole. I'm 61 and you have a hell of a lot to learn, kid. I see there are a lot of snot-nosed kids with mod points today; "insightful" my ass. More like clueless. TVs aren't going away any time soon, and you'll always need a display device, which is what a TV is, a display device with a radio receiver. I use my TV as a forty inch monitor for my kubuntu computer, you dumb kid. Oh, and I can watch TV on it, too.
PCs aren't going away any time soon, either. They won't be in many homes for long as tablets suffice for most, but you're going to need them in offices for the foreseeable future unless you want to go back to the dinosaur days of mainframes and dumb terminals.
You do realize there's a new-fangled thing called an "HDMI port" on your TV, don't you?
What I want to know is why I can't pick up over the air TV on my Android phone? It has radios, a 720p display, and sound circuitry. For it to double as a TV receiver all it would take would be a capacitor or two to tune to OTA signals and a little programming.
Wait -- you're that kid the Onion covered!! Guess what, kid, my 26 year old daughter watches TV when she's not working or at school or studying (which, granted, isn't often).
why would I throw hundreds of dollars into a purchase which can only do one thing (READ: HDTVs), and that only after I have thrown away hundreds of dollars more on a service (READ: cable TV), that I don't need or want?
I have no idea why people pay for cable. Yeah, back in the early '80s it was a good deal, lots of extra ad-free channels and HBO for ten bucks. But the price has skyrocketed and they show ads while the show is on, IMO spending money on cable is stupid, especially since the switch to digital we have twice as many OTA channels than we did with analog and the picture's as sharp as cable. So what you get 200+ channels when there are maybe a dozen (no more than OTA) that don't suck? I mean, why in the hell should I have to pay for the Golf Channel, BET, cooking channels, women's programming and two hundred more channels I have no intention of ever watching?
Cable used to be good. Discovery channel had science, History channel had history, empty-v had music videos. No commercials on the cable channels and no snow or other analog distortions (few, anyway). Now Discovery has Trick My Truck, History Channel has ghosts and the occult, and empty-V has the same stupid reality shows you get OTA and no videos, which you no longer need because I can watch any video I want on YouTube (on the TV, of course; I'm a nerd. I can actually use things for stuff they weren't designed for).
Congratulations on the +5 for a really stupid comment (although it's been modded back down by less juvenile, more intelligent moderators). And yes, I'll have fries with that, kid. Now get off my slashdot.
Free Martian Whores!
They spend most of it talking about the reasons not to get a new TV, especially 4K. 4K will be a mainstream product someday, but right now the pricing and limited programming means that it's strictly for well-heeled early adopters. If you need to watch a video like this to decide whether to buy 4K, you can't afford it. A slightly harder question is whether to wait another couple of years for 4K to become affordable, and they didn't even talk about that question or what the affordability timeframe is likely to be. (They talk about whether to buy 4K but not when to buy it.)
They leave the most important reason for getting a new TV until the very end, almost as an afterthought: size. If you currently have a 40-45" TV, moving up to the 55-60" class will be a major upgrade. If you have more than one TV in the house (or want an additional one) it's an easier call: you buy a bigger one for the primary viewing space and move the current living room set to a secondary space where it replaces whatever old or tiny thing that is there now.
In my opinion, upgrading to get Smart TV capability is a terrible reason. Much better to buy an external device (Roku, Chromecast, Apple TV, etc.) to do that, an option that they also mention in the video. No streaming device will be useful for more than a few years because the technology is evolving so quickly, whereas the TV will continue to be useful, at least in a secondary role, until it breaks.
They didn't even mention 3D. For most people it's a non-issue, but there might be a small number of 3D fans who would enjoy upgrading to get it, especially if they have some 3D movie that they love.
You need a better theatre.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
This is one of the worst videos /. has put up yet and the bar is incredibly low. No fault of the interviewee, the interviewer goes off on tangents about his sound system and social security. The question is never really answered. Here is the question I'd have liked to have had answered: Are Televisions on aggregate substantially better than they were 5-10 years ago when some of us bought our first HDTVs?
And let him talk. Who cares about the cheap refurb speakers your friends think sound good or that someone gave you a WII. Let the man talk about the topic and make a point.
If it still works fine, why replace it?
I had a 30 inch HD CRT(Best Buy off-brand Insignia) ... when I got a Real Job last year, yeah, it was time to replace it.
Ok, I didn't WTFV but if you bought an HDTV 7 years ago, there's an excellent chance it's only 720p. 1080p is a significant upgrade, but I would guess 1440p will become mainstream in the next year or two so you may as well wait until that happens and you can either enjoy the price drop on 1080p sets or buy a 1440p set and be set for another 5-10 years.
My dad bought an early LCD from Sharp (circa 2005). Today, it doesn't play nicely with the newest HDMI variants (notably, it doesn't do HDMI-CEC). It also has annoyingly high black levels. He's thinking about upgrading. I've got a high-end Sony from 2008. It's much better on the black levels and supports HDMI-CEC, but dark colors are a bit greenish. I won't bother upgrading unless the TV dies.
While the video focused on 4K (is content available, etc.), a better question would be whether video quality or any other features on current 1080p sets are any better than older 1080p sets. The answer seems to be that:
- Black levels of LCDs have improved steadily over the years, particularly on the high-end back-lit (rather than edge-lit) LED sets.
- If you've got a *really* old LCD (early 2000's), then you also have some amount of visual blurring because the pixels couldn't change state fast enough. This problem is completely gone with modern panels.
- Newer sets tend to have highly reflective glass surfaces rather than the matte surfaces that used to be more common. This can be amazingly distracting in a brightly lit room, seeing yourself reflecting in the screen when it goes dark.
- Newer sets have lots of fancy Internet features (Netflix, etc.), but you can retrofit those onto an old set with all sorts of gadgets (TiVo, AppleTV, GoogleTV, Roku, most Bluray players, etc.). And those aftermarket gadgets will tend to do a better job of updating themselves.
- Newer sets with LED backlights use less power than the CCFL sets, but not enough that it's worth dumping a bunch of money into a new set. On the the other hand, LEDs also last a whole lot longer, and when they age they slowly dim, versus CCFLs that just up and die.
- Newer sets are much bigger for a given price. If you were price-limited five years ago, you can now afford something much, much bigger.
- Newer sets have all sorts of fancy motion interpolation that tries to take a 24Hz source movie and create fake frames between the real ones. The resulting look feels more like video than like film. You might like this, you might hate it. It's a polarizing topic.
- Newer sets are much thinner, which means that their sound quality is often surprisingly awful. If you're already using an external sound system of some sort, you don't care, but at a bare minimum you'll be wanting a "sound bar".