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.

44 of 418 comments (clear)

  1. Betteridge's law by c0d3g33k · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Betteridge's law by raydobbs · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If only they made a tape...opaque...that could be used to cover up the cameras - then we'd only have to worry about the microphone - which might befall an accidental exposure to superglue. Microphones don't work when the little inner bits don't vibrate anymore. :D

    2. Re:Betteridge's law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Hell no" for me as well, but for a different reason -- WHY??? I'll get a new TV when the one I bought in 2002 dies. By then I can probably get a 100 inch TV for $300.

      I'm not going to just spend my damned money for the sake of spending it.

    3. Re:Betteridge's law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm sure the NSA has a secret deal with electrical tape manufacturers and camera producers which allows them to see the image through the tape by simply enabling a secret camera function. ;-)

    4. Re:Betteridge's law by Gr8Apes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's totally irrelevant if you don't hook your TV up to the internet in the first place.

      Besides, any self-respecting slashdotter has their own HTPC hooked up to their essentially HD Monitor (TV) and has it whitelisted for certain outbound services only and no direct inbounds (upon request only). Solves a whole host of issues. Oh, and the HTPC doesn't have a camera nor mike attached, so until the TV can be hacked over HDMI in that scenario, It appears to be relatively safe for now.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    5. Re:Betteridge's law by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If only they made a tape...opaque...that could be used to cover up the cameras - then we'd only have to worry about the microphone - which might befall an accidental exposure to superglue. Microphones don't work when the little inner bits don't vibrate anymore. :D

      Yea, I dunno about you, but I don't like to pay a several-hundred-dollar premium for hardware I'm going to intentionally break as soon as I open the box. That just seems stupid.

      I'll take a dumb display for half the price any day of the week.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    6. Re:Betteridge's law by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why would I want to spend money on a new TV whose primary new feature will be disabled within minutes of setting it up? Why not skip the whole thing and use the old TV till it dies?

    7. Re:Betteridge's law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      allows them to see the image through the tape

      You joke, but it's not all that far fetched.

      I've got a light-amplifying scope that my father-in-law gave me. One evening (not particularly dark out) I wondered why the image seemed dimmer than usual -- and then I realized I'd left the lens cap on. Yes, it could see through the lens cap. Some nominally black plastic is fairly transparent to near-red IR. Most digital or video cameras can see IR (test it by looking at an IR remote signal).

      I haven't tried it with electrical tape, though. Yet.

    8. Re:Betteridge's law by sinij · · Score: 2

      Or you could not buy a product with extra features you don't want. My big screen does not spy on me, it simply does not have an input capability (well, technically it has IR remote and power on/off button).

    9. Re:Betteridge's law by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

      Sure my formerly present HD was just fine, but unlike the TV I've had since I was in 3rd grade (some 30 odd years ago), my HDTV simply stopped working 3 years after I bought it. $900 to fix apparently, or get a new one for $700.

      they don't make em like they used to...

    10. Re: Betteridge's law by jd2112 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just checked your TV. Seriously, you need to stop watching Honey Boo Boo. You have 184 channels and you watch that crap?

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    11. Re:Betteridge's law by 1s44c · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Use metalized tape. Like the aluminum film stuff you are supposed to use on ducts instead of duct tape.

      Serious question - what is that tape called?

    12. Re:Betteridge's law by chihowa · · Score: 2

      The caption for that picture reads:

      An example of color digital infrared photography. The camera's infrared blocking filter has been removed.

      You can see the "normal" visible light colors in the parts of the scene that aren't highly IR reflective like the sky and some of the stone. From the same Wikipedia page, here is a picture from a camera that is setup as you describe. Note the complete absence of blue in the sky.

      This scene I originally linked looks very similar to "night vision" security cameras that use IR illuminators and have no IR cut filter for daytime. Highly NIR reflective objects look white, but otherwise somewhat accurate color is retained.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    13. Re:Betteridge's law by GNious · · Score: 2

      Screen without speakers costs a LOT more than screens with - reason: production quantities.

      Personally, I'd prefer a nice screen, with a single HDMI input, no speakers, no tuners, no internet ...

      Good luck finding one of those :(

  2. I don't have a HDTV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You insensitive clod.

  3. Much better by afidel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Much better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      With a delta of less than 100w it will take you a lot of TV watching to come close to a break even on cost from the efficiency gain (say, 30 _thousand_ hours if you spent $350 on your tv). Efficiency is a good thing, but it is important to know the context.

    2. Re:Much better by vux984 · · Score: 2

      My new 42" LED backlit screen consumes about 1/3rd the power (50-60W vs 140-150) of my first generation 1080p LCD,

      What do you work out the payback of that to be?
      ~$30/year assuming you watch TV 8 hours a day, every day. I sure hope power consumption wasn't a major factor for you.

      I probably wouldn't have upgraded if it hadn't been for a ghosting artifact caused by my HTPC menu getting burned in

      So your old TV was basically broken. You'd probably have bought a new one fairly soon even if technology hadn't moved much.

    3. Re:Much better by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 2

      Why are you taking a TV camping? Seems like you're missing the point of camping.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    4. Re:Much better by xaxa · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      With a delta of less than 100w it will take you a lot of TV watching to come close to a break even on cost from the efficiency gain (say, 30 _thousand_ hours if you spent $350 on your tv). Efficiency is a good thing, but it is important to know the context.

      Americans average 34hrs/week watching TV, so it would take 16 years (less, assuming electricity costs decrease).

      British people watch less, 28hrs/week, but electricity costs more (average £0.145/kWh), so a TV costing £250 and saving 100W would take almost 12 years to pay for the saving.

      My plasma TV's consuming ~350W now, with a dark sci-fi film (brighter scenes use more power for a plasma TV). The saving here would be greater: about 5 years to pay for, less since we don't just watch dark films.

      Sources:
      https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/annual-domestic-energy-price-statistics
      http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/communications-market-reports/cmr12/tv-audio-visual/uk-2.42/
      http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/americans-spend-34-hours-week-watching-tv-nielsen-numbers-article-1.1162285

  4. Not until 4k displays become common by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Not until 4k displays become common by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why replace perfectly fine 1080p HDTV?

      Because we're in a recession and need to stimulate pointless consumer spending, that's why! Now, are you in favor of spending all your money on stuff that will not appreciably improve your life, or are you a Communist?

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:Not until 4k displays become common by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Why the fuck he's talking about "image quality"? Until we get 4k displays the quality differences are non-existent.

      There have been big advances in LCD technology. 7 years ago I would not even have considered LCD, but today I'm hard pressed to justify the heat and power draw of plasmas since the LCDs have improved so much.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:Not until 4k displays become common by Cyberax · · Score: 2

      Nah, I'm happy to spend my money to buy new crap if it has some new and and interesting features. But why buy something that isn't any better?

    4. Re:Not until 4k displays become common by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      I already know that most of Hollywood has scary looking skin. Don't really need an extra boost in clarity.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    5. Re:Not until 4k displays become common by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      Why replace perfectly fine 1080p HDTV?

      Because Joe Consumer just discovered his neighbour has a fifty-inch TV, and his is only forty-inches.

  5. Easy answer... NO! by funky49 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Easy answer... NO! by marcosdumay · · Score: 2

      Usually they want something, but are price-constrained into getting something else not as good because that's all they can afford.

      They can't afford a slightly more expensive option, but can afford relplacing it every 5 years?

  6. Single-use? by phorm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:TV? You mean, single-use device? by cdrudge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 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.

  8. Re:even old/cheap tvs are great by cusco · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We have a fairly large CRT that's at least a dozen years old which works fine for us. If I were to sit with my nose a foot or two from the screen I might consider coughing up for an HDTV, but my eyesight isn't good enough to notice the difference from across the living room. Why bother? It's the same reason that I drive an 11 year-old truck; it's good enough for my needs.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  9. Re:TV? You mean, single-use device? by MpVpRb · · Score: 2

    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

  10. 9 years later, still won't trade my Pioneer Plasma by coastal984 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  11. Replace my HDTV? by gallondr00nk · · Score: 4, Informative

    Christ, I havn't even replaced the CRT yet.

  12. Re:TV? You mean, single-use device? by coastal984 · · Score: 2

    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.

  13. Yes, a single-use device. by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Give. Me. A. Break.

    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 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.

    1. Re:Yes, a single-use device. by gman003 · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      You should have stuck with just the car analogy if you wanted /.ers to actually understand your metaphor.

  14. Re:1 reason: weight by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

    It's a lot cheaper to hire somebody to help carry the TV once in a while than it is to buy a whole new TV.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  15. Re:Out of Date Info by MrNiCeGUi · · Score: 5, Informative

    Those are not real 4k Blu-ray players - they only upscale standard Blu-ray discs to 4k. When the 4k standard will be ratified, even if it will still use Blu-ray discs, those discs won't play in these players because the standard will almost certainly use new codecs.

    Also those 4k discs you can buy are really only standard 1080p discs. They are "4k mastered", meaning they are encoded from a 4k source, but downscaled to 1080p, and are usually using a much higher bitrate than ordinary Blu-ray discs in order to preserve as much of the quality of the picture as possible, since they most likely will be used in those upscaling players. Upscaling magnifies encoding artefacts.

    Those 4k mastered discs also play in normal Blu-ray players, since they are really only 1080p. At the moment they are probably the highest quality video source available for consumer purchase.

  16. When the one I've got dies by MrKaos · · Score: 2

    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.
  17. Re:TV? You mean, single-use device? by jedidiah · · Score: 2

    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.
  18. Re:Are there any new HDTVs with minimal input lag? by CityZen · · Score: 2

    This is a feature known as "gaming mode" on various TVs.

  19. I hate my HDTV by wcrowe · · Score: 2

    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
  20. Obligatory XKCD by TeknoHog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.