Ask Slashdot: Affordable Large HD/UHD/4K "Stupid" Screens?

New submitter LOGINS SUC (713291) writes Truly in the first-world problems category, I've been looking for large format (>55") HD/UHD screens for home entertainment. In light of the recent Samsung big-brother monitoring and advertisement injection concerns, does any reputable manufacturer still make "stupid" TVs? I don't want to pay for all the WiFi, apps, cameras, or microphones. I don't need it to have speakers. And at this point, I don't even care if it has the TV receiver functionality. All this stuff leads to vendor lock-in or is well on the path to obsolescence by the time I purchase the device. I prefer all of this non-visual functionality be handled by devices better suited to the purpose and I don't want to pay for screens including these widgets I have no intention of ever using, at all.

I've searched all the normal retail outlets. If I find anything, they are wildly expensive. "Computer monitors" fit the bill but are almost all 55") LCDs in the sub-$3,000 range anymore? Are projectors the last bastion of visual purity for home entertainment?

Comments

Vizio P Series

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.vizio.com/p-series

Re:Vizio P Series

[pr0nbot]

These appear to have wi-fi, so probably not as dumb as one would like.

Re:Vizio P Series

[DickBreath]

The link you pointed to says . . .

A revolutionary V6 Processor features a quad-core GPU and dual-core CPU for maximum speed and performance. Enjoy faster usability, quicker TV start-up time and menu navigation, increased image rendering speed and a better Smart TV experience.

Oh, God, please save us from having a Smart TV 'experience'. Otherwise known as a Telescreen.

Re:Vizio P Series

[jeffmeden]

Presumably by leaving it unconfigured or intentionally misconfigured, you could trick it into not being very "smart" at all. I would only consider smart TVs with mandatory connectivity (of which I don't know of any) as really falling outside the acceptable criteria here. If you dont like the "smart" features don't freaking use them. Rip the button off the remote and cover it with a bit of black electrical tape. Whatever floats your boat. However, the features come from a $10 ARM SoC which every vendor is building in nowadays since it really doesn't increase their cost much. In fact, as the question suggests, making special TVs without these features is now more expensive since more people want them than don't.

Re:Vizio P Series

[DRMShill]

On top of this not being a "stupid" screen, this product is also unsuitable as a pc monitor. It uses 4:2:0 chroma subsampling which makes text look terrible.

http://www.geeks3d.com/2014120...

Re:Vizio P Series

[Anonymous Coward]

Buying a smart TV already tells the manufacturers that they're selling and make more. Specifically buying non-smart tvs is one less smart tv sold sending the right message.
We're already at the tipping point that manufacturers have pushed smart tvs so hard, people didn't even know they were buying a smart tv and haven't used any of their features, but it's giving manufacturers the excuse that they're selling so they make more.
Your "solution" makes it worse.

Re:Vizio P Series

[davydagger]

it only works that way sometimes. Manufactures probably push "smart" TVs because an onboard SoC probably adds an existing $10-20 to a $3000 TV, while opening on massive new revenue channels via mining your data. Also be very careful when the incentive to act unethically is high.

Re:Vizio P Series

[omnichad]

Not to mention that having a SoC probably enables a more responsive UI for the non-smart portion of the TV.

Re:Vizio P Series

[jafac]

It could be argued (and has) that "Smart TV" features, are a value-add for the manufacturer, not the consumer. (because those very features are used to generate revenue, and are not particularly useful to the end-user).

The only real benefit to the end-user is if they're too dumb or lazy to hook up a Roku or other cheap streaming device (or whatever). In fact; I found my Samsung's menus and apps to be so ridiculously slow and poorly designed, that those features are basically unusable. (example: get up in the morning, turn on TV to watch something while I eat breakfast: TV takes at least 60 seconds before Netflix app can even be selected (please wait, the TV is starting up), then another 30 seconds to START the program, then another 30 seconds to display, pick, and enter the profile - OMG-Teh LAG!; we're all used to Netflix taking about 5-10 seconds to fire up the stream of your selected program, plus the remote is shitty, is very sensitive about direction pointing, weird button placement, poor battery life. . . if I instead use the Roku, it's literally 5 seconds to get into where I'm picking the program, the remote has a simple, intelligent layout, and doesn't particularly care if it's pointed perfectly at the device).

As far as "Smart TV" features go, I think it's just this year's "3d" (which, also, nobody wanted.)

Re:Vizio P Series

[ShieldW0lf]

These aren't televisions. They're billboards. And until someone offers to pay me a monthly fee to put a billboard in my living room, there won't be one there.

Projector

[gameboyhippo]

Just use a projector. It's inexpensive and typically has no features other than projecting.

Re:Projector

[Anonymous Coward]

An inexpensive 4K projector? Do tell...

Re:Projector

[rastan]

A projector has a very low contrast, because what you see when you turn it off (the usually white wall) is it's blackest black. This is a huge difference to modern TVs.

Re:Projector

[Anonymous Coward]

Why this is modded up is beyond me. Projectors are harder to position in a home, are significantly more expensive for equal quality, require expensive screens if you want decent contrast and visibility, etc... Projectors server a very niche home market place for anyone that cares about quality. If you think you can take a cheap projector playing on a wall and compare it to even an entry level 4k set in terms of quality you are a fool.

Re:Projector

[A well known coward]

I also use a projector. 143" HD screen for under $3k. And you don't need an expensive screen to get good image quality. There are special paints such as Goo Systems that can make any wall a high contrast and high gain screen.

Re:Projector

[dinfinity]

I thought the same (they'll cost you at least thousands of dollars), but it's the title that is at fault here: 'HD/UHD/4K'.

Although I have no idea why anyone would want to buy a new HD projector nowadays. I've always felt that the resolution of projectors was terrible and that they would benefit most from a push for higher resolutions.

Re:Projector

[jeffmflanagan]

>Projectors are harder to position in a home
Not significantly unless you're totally unskilled.

>are significantly more expensive for equal quality
A 10' direct view display would be much more expensive than a nice projector and screen.

>require expensive screens if you want decent contrast and visibility, etc
If you consider $155 to be expensive, you're not really the market for a big-screen TV experience. Screens haven't been insanely expensive for years.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...

Re:Projector

[Nutria]

143" HD screen for under $3k.

Brand and model would help.

Re:Projector

[A well known coward]

Panasonic PT-AE8000U.

Re:Projector

[gameboyhippo]

I was talking about a 1080p projector (Usually $800). But if we're talking 4k, let's do a little googling.

First result for 4k projector $11,000. First result for 100" 4k TV screen $250,000. You're welcome to do the research and prove me wrong, but inch to dollars, projectors are less expensive.

Re:Projector

[gameboyhippo]

You're doing it wrong. Most people watch projected images with the lights dimmed... like at the local cinema.

Re:Projector

[gameboyhippo]

It's modded up because I'm not wrong. Projectors these days can be very high quality. I have one in my basement. 1080p native resolution. When 4k becomes sub $1000 (and there is 4k content available), I'll get one of those. For now, I can live with 1080p. Also, I'd love to know where you can pick up a 100" TV (even 1080p) for $800.

Re:Projector

[sjbe]

Just use a projector. It's inexpensive and typically has no features other than projecting.

"Inexpensive"? Umm... no. To get a decent set up in my house I'd have to ceiling mount the projector. That means punching holes in my ceiling and bringing in an electrician to run the wires. I'd have to put some sort of screen on one of my walls. I'd have to spend quite a bit of money for a projector with adequate brightness and spend a fair bit of time tinkering with it. And then if I decide to rearrange the room I'm pretty much stuck with what I've got. All of that costs significant $$$ unless you go all ghetto in your setup.

No thanks. Projectors can be great. My sister has one in her house which is nice but her house was designed with one in mind.

Re:Projector

[Em Adespoton]

Projectors are harder to position in a home

Projectors from the 1990's/early 2000's are harder to position in a home; today's projectors are almost all self-monitoring, meaning that they project their test image and then calibrate against it using internal optics. As a result, you can place the projector anywhere that it can project an uobstructed beam at a relatively uniformly-colored surface, and it will adjust for keystone/flatness/color depth all by itself. This means that you can keep a desk-mount projector tucked away, and stick it on a coffee table pointed at a blank wall when you want to watch something. Nothing hard to position about that.

And if you're concerned about it not looking as good as a SmartTV of the same size -- those TVs don't really look that great. Sure, it won't look quite as good as a computer monitor of the same size, but the quality of monitors is still significantly higher than that of TV screens. And as has been pointed out, monitors only go up to around 55", after which you're into LED territory, and an image that's worse than the projected equivalent which is 1/10 the price.

Re:Projector

[TheCarp]

You know, I never gave it too muich thought but, I have really good vision (better than 20/20). So while I have never been up close and personal with a real movie house screen, from my seat, with the projector off, I have noticed they seem to not be flat white but appear to have lots of holes in them. I wonder now if what I was noticing was some feature fordealing with contrast.

Re:Projector

[suutar]

That is in fact why I no longer have a projector. My wife isn't as big a fan of having the lights off to watch TV.

Re:Projector

[Tumbleweed]

An inexpensive UHD projector? Where?

Re:Projector

[mobby_6kl]

Why did you get rid of the projector, then?

Re:Projector

[ewibble]

Perhaps he doesn't want a 100" TV. A projector can project at any size, so yes if want a really large screen go for a projector, if you are actually on a budget, which judging from the question he is, then go for a much smaller screen 4K TV, I am sure you could find for well under $11,000.

But you knew that, didn't you.

Re:Projector

[doramjan]

ha ha ha, "price parody"! Good one! Wait... I don't see the parody here.

Re:Projector

[A well known coward]

Yes, it took some planning, but not a whole lot. And the cost was under $2k for the projector (plus NYC taxes), about $200 worth of Goo Systems paint, and under $50 for a wall shelf and hardware. In the end, a sharp looking 134" 1080p screen for well under $3k.

Re:Projector

[gameboyhippo]

Naw... I'm not good at reading between the lines. I assumed that the words 'big' and '>55"' meant that he wanted a big screen for movie viewing. But I guess if he just wanted a 20" computer monitor, then yeah, he shouldn't get a projector. That being said, after 70", it's far more economical to get a 1080p projector... even at 4k.

Re:Projector

[A well known coward]

My apartment is in an old (1870's) brownstone townhouse. In no way designed with a projector and surround sound system in mind. And I didn't have to hang it from the ceiling either. Just built a wall shelf, and put the projector among some books, decorations, flower pots, etc. Inexpensive, and doesn't look out of place.

Re:Projector

[gameboyhippo]

Inexpensive is relative here. If you can find a 100" TV for less than $10,000, I'd be surprised. Since content is only 1080p, I'd say just pick up a decent $800 1080p projector.

Re:Projector

[gameboyhippo]

I think you'd be fairly surprise to learn that you're incorrect on just about every point you made. 1080p projector is $800. Screen can be made for $100 and still look nice. My projector isn't noisy and consumes much less energy than a plasma TV. As for bulbs, I've never had to replace one. By the time my first projector's bulb died, it was obsolete. But I don't just sit around and watch TV all day either. In any case, a bulb is $180. Hardly the "hundreds" that you claim.

Re:Projector

[Tumbleweed]

The original poster said >55", which doesn't mean he wants to jump straight to 100", which would make sense for projecting, but there are plenty of displays in the ~6x" category which are cheaper by almost an order of magnitude.

Re:Projector

[Trogre]

Projectors are fine for making things big, but not so much for making things look good.

Due to the fact they're projecting on to a white surface, unless you're sitting in a very dark room they have terrible contrast.

You'll also struggle to find one that does UHD due to the "active component" (the LCD/DMD through/off which light must pass) being much smaller than that of a monitor. It's been enough of a struggle to get projectors to go beyond.

Re:Projector

[antdude]

I haven't seen any good consumer projectors that match TVs.

Re:Projector

[gameboyhippo]

If I knew you in real life, I'd invite you over for a movie to show you that you're a bit off in your assumptions. Yes, the contrast is affected by light more than a TV, but the picture doesn't look terrible as you suggest. It's 1080p just like an HDTV. Everything is just as crisp as 1080p will allow. I can literally see a football spiral while watching the Superbowl. Video games like Super Smash Bros. look fantastic on a 100" screen at 1080p. For casual TV viewing, it's not a great choice, but if you are like me and watch TV or play video games on purpose, then it's fantastic. Just dim the lights, grab some popcorn and enjoy.

In fact, I will say that the quality of my home projector setup looks better than the local drive in movie theater.

Re:Projector

[ihtoit]

if your projection wall is white, you're doing it wrong.

A projection wall needs to be neutral matt grey. Preferably using a projection paint such as DIY Theatre's kit which does 90 square feet in F5 SVG grey (you can do a Matchpot matt emulsion mix if you're really careful with it, but you have to get enough paint for the project in one batch - you'll never get an exact match across two batches, and you need a roller with a fine enough stipple to eliminate dryshine). If you're not using the entire wall, you'll need to box the projection area with black velvet screen edging or ash moulding to further enhance contrast. Blackout curtains always help.

Re:Projector

[ihtoit]

you can paint a 15x6 foot section of wall in two-coat projector grey (that's F5 neutral for you colorists) for LESS than two hundred Dollars, and it lasts forever.

Re:Projector

[ihtoit]

grey, not white. If you're using white you're doing it wrong.

Volume matters.

[Z00L00K]

You may actually have to pay more for a large screen without all the WiFi and stuff because the production volume for them is a lot smaller.

Live with the fact that you get "extras" for almost no cost.

Re:Volume matters.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's assume you use one of the malevolently "smart" TVs, with WiFi, speech recognition, and so forth, just like Samsung's evil sickness. This is mostly just because it's cheaper.

* If you need to connect to a media server on your LAN (over a cable or wireless), make sure your router won't allow any packets between the TV and the internet.

* If your neighbors are close enough and also have wireless, then make sure you use a different IP address range to them on your LAN.

* It might be possible to have your router set a static IP address on the TV instead of relying on DHCP. This is helpful, especially if you have close enough neighbors.

For all of these, you'll need to know at least a little about configuring your router. This should be sufficient if the TV is standalone, just connected to a media server and/or a terrestrial antenna (digital or analog).

Re:Volume matters.

[bill_mcgonigle]

And then don't connect to WiFi if you don't trust the extra "features"

Are there displays that don't work as a basic display without a WiFi connection (for whatever contrived reason)?

Given the value of spy data, this isn't an impossible "feature" to implement.

Re:Volume matters.

[orgelspieler]

If you need to connect to a media server on your LAN (over a cable or wireless), make sure your router won't allow any packets between the TV and the internet.

I know! We could connect it using one of those $10,000 directional audio ethernet cables. It won't allow packets from the TV to the internet, just the other way around.

Re:Volume matters.

[Anonymous Coward]

LG 65LB5200 $850
LG 65LB5200 $999

Re:Volume matters.

[suutar]

I have heard that there are. There's a post above about a guy who won a TV in a raffle and can't use it because he can't put it on the net to accept the TOS.

Re:Volume matters.

[by (1706743)]

This is sort of true for home audio as well -- surround sound receivers are cheap. Surround-sound preamps, though, tend to be very pricey, even though a very basic preamp would just be the receiver sans the final amplification.

Re:Volume matters.

[Grishnakh]

No problem, get one of the off-brand TVs like Vizio. It's only the big name brands like Sony and Samsung which only sell "smart" TVs.

Re:Volume matters.

[BlueBlade]

I'm really nitpicking here, but it really bugged me for some reason. That's not how static ip works. If your router is the one assigning an ip address to your TV, you're using DHCP no matter what. A static ip would be entered on the TV itself from the remote.

Re:Volume matters.

[ihtoit]

my Netgear allows me to reserve a specific IP for a specific device by hostname and/or by MAC address.

(I did it earlier on to lock in a machine for my lad so he can run a game server).

Following that, it also allows me to control - from the router - precisely which ports the device is allowed to use, or which ones it is not allowed to use, which ports to forward...

What I did when I was in your boat...

[MoronGames]

Was get a 70" smart TV, and not use any of the smart TV features. It seemed to work out alright.

Re:What I did when I was in your boat...

[Dutch Gun]

Same here. I picked up a 60" LCD TV that had a smattering of "smart" features, and I never use them. Simply don't allow your TV to be hooked up to your internal network. Besides which, the built-in stuff is typically horrid (badly designed, terrible performance), and some companies actually have the gall to show ads when you're using the smart features - not to mention the latest gaff of sending your private conversations out over the internet. Screw that.

BTW, you'll often find that TVs are sold in several variations among the same brand and family. You can often save hundreds of dollars by choosing the lowest-end variant among the family of model variants. The difference is often some subtle display technology and a bunch more "smart" features. It's likely you might not even notice the difference in picture quality, and you've indicated you don't want those smart features anyhow. Nowadays, even "low end" LCD TVs like the one I purchased a few years ago have fantastic visual quality - at least to my eyes.

If you've got a console, use that as a media player. They're much better at it anyhow. Or, you can buy purpose-built media devices pretty cheap nowadays as well.

Re: What I did when I was in your boat...

[barc0001]

Not always an option. Others have posted about the newer crop of TVs displaying warning/error messages for up to a minute on power up if they can't connect to the internet, and one guy mentioned a TV that won't work at all unless connected so you can accept the TOS.

Re: What I did when I was in your boat...

[Dutch Gun]

Really? Honestly, that's sounds a tiny bit "urban legend-ish" to me. If you can find links about that with data about specific makes and models, then I'll be convinced, but until then, call me skeptical.

As of just a couple of years ago (when I bought my TV), most owners of smart TVs did not connect them to the internet. I'm betting that hasn't changed all that significantly in only two years. If so, any manufacturer who pulled a stunt like would undoubtedly get a wave of complaints and product returns. It's hard for me to imagine they'd subject themselves to something like that. Remember the Xbox One and the hoopla about requiring an internet connection?

Re:What I did when I was in your boat...

[gl4ss]

yeah.. and the money the manufacturer spends on the smart features is in the 25 bucks range, which of a 1000$-2000$ bucks purchase is not that much.

just don't connect it to the internet and you're golden. it's pretty fucking unlikely to inject ads into your displayport feed anyways even if you connected it to the net.

you would likely pay more for a version that didn't have a tuner anyways due to lower sales for that model and lower production numbers...

Re: What I did when I was in your boat...

[ihtoit]

LG and Samsung do it. Samsung have been caught fairly recently, who knows how long they've been doing it for, but LG did it with a sweeping change to their ToS last June. Basically it was a clickthrough agreement (illegal in the UK) that locked ALL your non-broadcast services until you agreed to it. So no iPlayer, no games, no VoD, no CatchupTV, NO TIVO!(!). The Office of Fair Trading here went ape fucking shit at LG and pretty much said to them "We're going to fine you by the DAY until you sort this shit out". They're still sweeping up the pieces...

I'd go with a projector

[Karmashock]

You can buy black projector screens around 100" for about 500 dollars or so. And that means you can watch your projector with the lights on.

Re:I'd go with a projector

[Karmashock]

sure...
http://www.digital4kcrystalony...

That's about 550 for one quart and about 750 for 2 quarts.

All you need in that case is a flat bit of MDF or some other very smooth cheap wood. You could probably buy a sheet of the correct size for about 20 bucks. And then you just paint it and then either glue the board to a wall or hang it.

The serious screens of this nature can cost 5000 dollars easy. The clever move is to get one of the paint products specifically designed for this application and do it yourself.

Alternatively if you want to save even more money then you can get really good results by mixing a black matte paint with a metallic paint at a ratio of 1 to 3. This last method is moderately inferior to the specialty paint above but you can get about 2 quarts of this paint for about 30 dollars instead of 750. Any of the options beat the pants off the Black Diamond black screens because those things are just absurdly over priced.

Even so, you're going to probably want two screens. A black multi purpose screen for the day that will give you good contrast in a fully lit room. And then a conventional white screen for late at night if you want to get serious.

The black screens do look good if they're properly done. But under ideal circomstances a white screen will look better. It is just that the white screen ONLY looks good under ideal circomstances. That is if the room is totally dark then the white screen looks the best. But if there is any light in the room at all, you're going to want a darker screen.

Gray screens are okay in dimly lit rooms. Think candle light. If there is more light then that, then you need a black screen. And again, the black screens look pretty good in all situations. If I could only have one screen, I'd have a black one. Just less of a hassle. But white screens are really cheap. You can get one for like 50 dollars that is a proper screen with the projection cloth that is specifically for projection screens. So it isn't a big deal.

The thing to remember with projection screens is that there is no reason why it couldn't last for a really long time. TVs last so long and no more because the technology advances. But the screens don't really change. A screen from decades ago would work as well today as it did then. Only thing you have to worry about is it getting dirty or something. Which is easily dealt with by just dusting the damn thing every so often. They don't get dusty quickly because they're vertical. But they do get dusty eventually. Clean them off a bit every six months and they'll last about as long as you will.

Re:I'd go with a projector

[Karmashock]

Well, you can always prop the board up or put it into some sort of stand. If you have room for a big screen tv then you have room for a flat particle board projection screen.

As to pull down screens. You can get white ones really cheaply but the black ones are currently really expensive. Again... the difference is about 100 to 1. A pull down black projection screen can easily run 5000 dollars and a pull down white screen can run as little as 50 dollars. The paint option is popular because you can get a serviceable black screen for as little as about 60 dollars or if you want a quality one, you can throw about 500 at it. But that is still ten times cheaper then 5000.

Anyway, best of luck with that. Just keep in mind that the white screens only look good in the dark, the gray screens look best in low light, and projection sucks in full light unless you have a black screen.

Re:I'd go with a projector

[PayPaI]

sure...
http://www.digital4kcrystalony...

What an annoying site. Here I was hoping the bar would be raised with flash on the way out, but it looks like people can just recreate garbage flash sites with equally-bad HTML5 sites.
The one upside is it's slightly usable on mobile, even if it still looks awful.

Re:I'd go with a projector

[Karmashock]

FYI, it is one guy running that company. And he's not a web designer. So cut him some slack.

Re:I'd go with a projector

[PayPaI]

It's really directed at whoever created the template (wix.com, apparently). Nothing wrong with using a template, but when your fancy effects get in the way of viewing information about your products, I'd really consider looking elsewhere.

Re:I'd go with a projector

[Karmashock]

Again, he's a one man company and he's not a web developer. I would cut him some slack with the web design critique.

Re:I'd go with a projector

[Kizul Emeraldfire]

Alternatively if you want to save even more money then you can get really good results by mixing a black matte paint with a metallic paint at a ratio of 1 to 3.

Am I correct in assuming you mean a mixture that is three parts black matte paint and one part metallic paint? Or do I have those backward?

I myself am looking in to getting a projector sometime down the road, because I'm quite tired of all this ridiculous 'smart TV' nonsense; I miss the days where a television, upon receiving a signal from the power button (either on the TV itself or on the remote), simply turned on — and, in three seconds or so, was displaying a picture.

TVs these days just don't feel like televisions to me. They seem more like all-in-one PCs: they have RAM and CPUs and GPUs and probably 3-D accelerated graphics and rubbish such as that, rather than simply being a tube or a screen designed to display unfiltered whatever signal is being sent to it from the device you've hooked up to it. The image now has to be processed before it can be displayed, resulting in sometimes unforgivable lag (while playing video games) between pressing a button and seeing the button's action happen on the screen.

Somebody give me a shotgun and some rock salt; I've some kids I need to chase off of my lawn.

Re:I'd go with a projector

[Karmashock]

three parts metallic to one part black matte. The specific paints are actually important as there is a lot of trial and error that goes into this sort of thing. If you look around or do a web search you should be able to get some recipes. All the paints you need can be found at home depot if you're interested in going the super DIY route.

Another critical issue, the surface you paint on should be FLAT. You might want to buy a cheap material that is utterly flat, glue that to the wall, and then paint on top of that. That helps sometimes.

There are a lot of different options.

There is the black diamond screens that you can just buy... they cost about 5000 dollars.

Then there is the specially formulated paint that you can get for about 500 dollars.

Then there is the super DIY route which will probably end up costing you about 50 dollars.

There are pros and cons outside of the cost. The Black Diamond screens are supposed to give a really good picture but they have limited viewing angles like some LCDs. You really need to be facing them for them to work properly.

The special paint probably offers the best screen but it is expensive if you screw up because it is 500 dollars for one quart and 700 or so for two. Big savings to buy two and really you might need two. And even then it just sucks to spend that kind of money when you're going to mess it up the first time probably. That said, it probably has the best screen if you do it right.

The super DIY route is highly variable depending on the recipe you go with because some of them work really well and some of them have issues. You might find that you have to do a lot of trial and error even if you are working from a recipe. The recipe could be bad... it is just people's opinions up there. What you'll find from most of the recipes is that they often are painting on a specific kind of surface. Sometimes those surfaces are important meaning if you want to use that recipe you need to get whatever material they're painting on and some of those materials are either hard to get or expensive or both.

We're in early days with this stuff. In 20 years all the home screens will probably be black.

And again, you'll probably want TWO screens as the black screens really are best when there is light in the room. But if your room is totally dark, the white screens are actually the best.

Re:I'd go with a projector

[Kizul Emeraldfire]

Thank you very much for what — to me — is a wealth of information. I'll definitely keep this all in mind.

Re:Don't forget

[JMJimmy]

...to put on your tinfoil hat before you get out of your bed from your lead-lined walled bedroom....

It's not tinfoil-hatism when it's true. Big brother issues aside, there's a very valid point in his post: Why pay for all those extra electronics/failure points when all you want is a display device. Personally, all I want is a screen and speakers with enough ports on the back for my various systems.

Dumb, not stupid.

[StikyPad]

The word is "dumb."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Remo...
http://gizmodo.com/5887808/eve...

Re:Dumb, not stupid.

[techdolphin]

Was it stupid not to use dumb?

Re:Just don't connect to a network

[king neckbeard]

You could, however, use a number of techniques to block a 4G connection from leaving your house.

Re:Just don't connect to a network

[Anonymous Coward]

Still have to put up with those crappy Samsung edge-lighting systems. Display thinness over picture quality FTL.

Re:Just turn off the Smart TV features

[doti]

Oh yeah, when some dumb shit company who's core business is putting those retards into cubicles bought it.

head to http://soylentnews.org/ and be happy

Re:No. Just don't use it.

[cyberchondriac]

Agreed. I wasn't very interested in a "Smart" TV, my Sony BluRay player already does all that. But, I was set on a Samsung UHD 50", and they don't make a dumb TV that's UHD that I've seen. Not locally in the stores at any rate. When I got it home, I enabled Internet on it anyway, I was curious to see just what else it might offer. I was chagrined to learn of the microphone/data mining issue though.
It shouldn't be difficult to just turn off the networking, unless the TV refuses to work without it or something insidious, that would be serious problem. I'll test mine tonight.

Seiki

[Yakasha]

Straight up, you get what you pay for. So don't expect some amazing TV. But I've been using a 39" Seiki 4k @ work and it is good enough. Cost a "whopping" $280.

Their 65" 4k (30hz @ 4k resolution) is now on Amazon for $999. The 39" has worked just fine for me, so I imagine the 65" is comparable in terms of quality. (It does have 4 stars on 600+ reviews)

Re:Seiki

[JohnnyDoesLinux]

I second that post. I bought the same monitor (39" Seiki 4k), but was forced to upgrade my video card to handle the higher resolution.

Bought it through Wal-Mart! They shipped it to my house for free! It was NOT damaged when it arrived.

Wonderful to not have to use multiple monitors.

It does have a tuner and speakers, but not too intelligent.

Re:Seiki

[craighansen]

I've got some Seiki 4k TVs, and I'd agree that their good for the money and have minimal features like the OP asked for. The 39" and 55" work out of the box perfectly with the HDMI port on an Apple MacBookPro.

There's one glaring problem I've had though, and that's with the built-in sound. The volume control responds to almost any input on a Charter cable box remote, usually by raising the volume. I have to keep punching it back down as I use the remote. Since the OP doesn't want sound, it might be OK for him, though the on-screen volume display would pop up, and if you didn't block the sound input on HDMI, it might start blaring if you didn't open it up and disconnect the speakers.
You could cover the IR input, except that I think it powers up in the OFF state, needing the remote to turn it on.

Re:Seiki

[lexman098]

I have this model in 50". For the price I don't regret it at all, but I'm not sure how people are using these things as computer monitors. Mine makes a buzzing when it's on, which is fine if I'm watching TV because you can't hear it over the TV audio. In a quiet room though it would be very irritating.

Re:Seiki

[Yakasha]

Huh. I don't hear it.

FINALLY! +1 tinnitus!

Re:Seiki

[Yakasha]

Yes definitely. Everybody, check your video card to make sure it can handle the 4k.

For mbp, that means late 2013 mbp or newer. HDMI only. no mdp.

Re:Seiki

[Yakasha]

work out of the box perfectly with the HDMI port on an Apple MacBookPro

Late 2013 or newer models only. Though I wouldn't say "perfect", unless you have excellent vision. OSX & most software definitely have issues scaling. You make the dock big enough on 4k, it takes 1/2 your screen when d/c. The top menu can't be resized except with the Accessibility zoom which means a scrolling desktop. Outlook... ugh. You can only change the font size for the reading pane & message list, not the folder, menu, or ribbons.

Still worth it.

Re:Seiki

[rs79]

I got a Seiki too for a few hundred bucks new. I was gonna spend more on a non-4K set but the sales droid was honest and said "this is better and cheaper". To be honest I don't even drive the thing at 4K. I played with some yt 4K files in the store but just use it to play 1920p files and it's stucking funning frankly. I don't see how you can beat this bang fir the buck, higher quality beyond this is all an expensive diminished return.

Sure I'd love a 60" 3d 4K curved Toshiba. But is the picture twice as good as the cheapest 4K monitor? No, not really.

Find a store that has a Seiki and play a 1920p and then 2160p video on it and see if that's good enough. Cold, dead, fingers etc. for mine.

The thing about micro miniaturization and automation is, "cheap chinese" is now of higher quality than Sony stuff was two decades ago and really isn't any loner an instant kiss of death imo. Hell, Mercedes has TRW make some suspension parts for them there, people there make what they're told and if you stop telling them to make crap they can crank out some pretty amazing stuff.

Re:Seiki

[Yakasha]

Thanks for the tip about Seiki. I didn't know about them.

Also, I find it hilarious that one of the best options for a dumb TV is one that runs linux.

Wow I had no idea. The one I'm using at work is of course owned by my company. But now with the price sub $300 I think I'm going to pick one up for myself just to play around with it. Never been inside a monitor's guts before. :)

Re:Seiki

[Roman Mamedov]

> 30hz @ 4k resolution NOOOOOOOOOOOOoooo You have no idea how terrible this is. It's even a pain to move the mouse cursor.

Re:Seiki

[Yakasha]

I absolutely know how terrible it is. Like I said, I'm using it now. :)

I also know my dock takes 1/2 my screen when I disconnect the monitor, Outlook only lets your resize fonts in 2 of 3 panes, not on the ribbons or the menu, OSX only lets you resize your menu bar with the Accessibility zoom (for nearly blind people) which then requires you scroll your desktop around, if you disconnect your mac from the monitor without first going to sleep it sometimes keeps the 4k resolution on your tiny laptop screen, making it impossible to even unlock your computer, Yosemite seems to randomly "forget" the monitor is even attached, the screen doesn't auto-wake when your computer does (you have to hit the power button specifically), and you have to go into a secret menu on the TV by pushing a "secret" code on the remote to turn off the super-duper-secret sleep timer.

But its still worth it for the real-estate; and the poster didn't care enough to mention a minimum refresh rate or gaming. :)

Re:Seiki

[Roman Mamedov]

It wasn't clear from your post that you are using the 4K display at 30Hz, you only mentioned trying out the 39" one.

I was referring not to screen real-estate related problems, but specifically to the 30 Hz refresh rate, it's way too low even for desktop usage to be comfortable (and forget enjoying games).

Re:Seiki

[Punknubbins]

Since you own one, and I can't find mention of it on Seiki's site. Does this monitor support split screen from two sources? would be nice if it could handle 2x 60hz inputs instead of being locked at 30hz.

Re:Seiki

[Yakasha]

"You get what you pay for", so I highly doubt it does anything that special.

Re:Seiki

[Yakasha]

It wasn't clear from your post that you are using the 4K display at 30Hz, you only mentioned trying out the 39" one.

I was referring not to screen real-estate related problems, but specifically to the 30 Hz refresh rate, it's way too low even for desktop usage to be comfortable (and forget enjoying games).

Yes I do use the 4k resolution, hence all the problems I've found. If you use a lower resolution then everything will look bigger already = no problems, but no extra real-estate. @ 4k, you have to increase font sizes or just have excellent vision to be able to read anything. You can't increase all the font sizes, and if you do, they stay huge on your laptop screen when you disconnect the monitor. It is a pain.

The mouse lag is very noticeable. However with muscle memory and a little practice I've learned to click without having to wait for the catchup. Furthermore, 90% of my time is spent typing, not moving the mouse, so its not a big issue anymore. I've always been one to avoid the mouse via hotkeys & shortcuts anyways, so, meh.

Absolutely if you're doing any kind of intensive mouse movement such as graphics editing (or if it just bugs you enough), think before you buy. 39" @ $280 is still tempting to me for some stuff, even if I never did use the 4k resolution.

Re:Seiki

[Punknubbins]

One can dream right?

Re:Seiki

[Yakasha]

As somebody else pointed out, it runs Linux and so is just asking to get hacked!

Re:Seiki

[ihtoit]

don't they come with headphone sockets anymore? Just plug in a dummy load and be done.

Re:Seiki

[craighansen]

Oh, it's been reported that the headphone jack doesn't turn off the speakers. So there's that. Some were hoping that a firmware update would somehow fix that. Haven't tried that myself, as I'm using the speakers and the headphone jack probably wouldn't kill the OSD.

Re:Seiki

[ihtoit]

ok... that's just insane. When did a long-established behaviour of physically plugging in a jack breaking the ground connection to a pair of internal speakers suddenly become inconvenient to the point where the switching was taken and placed in the software realm??

Inquiring minds really, really *need* to know.

May have to go with a projector

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to go with a projector, and you might have to also. It was the only way I could find to get a piece of equipment that didn't screw with the picture in ways I didn't want screwed with (i.e. I can't stand the soap-opera effect, or the idiotic way modern sets turn the backlight down in dark scenes. No, I'm not kidding, they really do that. Try watching Alien, or anything at all with a lot of night / dark scenes and most modern sets will ruin it completely. In quite a few sets you can't turn this feature off without voiding your warranty, even if you can figure out how in the first place through the service menu).

I have a great projector, it does one thing, does it well, and has basic controls and nothing extra. Is 3D (does a great job of it) and total cost including screen was around a grand! It's "only" 1080p of course, but it looks basically perfect. This might be your best / only bet...

Re:May have to go with a projector

[Some_Llama]

or the idiotic way modern sets turn the backlight down in dark scenes. No, I'm not kidding, they really do that. Try watching Alien, or anything at all with a lot of night / dark scenes and most modern sets will ruin it completely.

Are you talking about the setting "dynamic contrast"?

I have two westinghouse bottom of the barrel TVs and they both have a toggle for this...

maybe a seiki

[Anonymous Coward]

seiki 4k 65inch? 1000$ on amazon

Re:Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

I see your point; how can they sell their "smart" device when it performs worse than a "dumb" device that costs $20 less? (Actually the price difference would be more than the BOM because they also have to hire terrible programmers to crap up the device too though.).

A perfect example is my LG "smart" TV. So damn "smart" that it takes no less than 30 seconds to change inputs! Grab control device (which thinks it is a mouse), click the "apps" button, wait 7 seconds, point mouse at "input" and click. Click again because it wasn't "pink" and active yet. Wait for 8 seconds for input list to load. Point at HDMI 1, attempt to click. Wait and curse while it redraws the screen and loads DLNA sources. Now HDMI 1 is off the screen. Mouse "mouse" to right, click next page. Find HDMI 1, and wait til it is "pink" and active. Click. 30 seconds is about the quickest you can get through this.

I long for a dumb slab of glass TV with a bunch of HDMI inputs that I can switch by just a click. Oh, and this TV gets 400 MB software updates all the time. It pops up while you are watching a show and asks you to install it. Fuckers!

Easy...

[Shinare]

Don't connect your TV to WiFi... Done.

If you don't authorize it, it can't divulge info.

[Jason Pollock]

You don't need to buy a dumb TV. All you need to avoid is plugging it into a network.

If you don't plug your home theatre equipment into your network, it can't call home. Done.

Re:A better question

[Wycliffe]

Can I get a "smart tv" with a user replaceable OS? I'd rather load an interface more suited to my needs (something like Kodi) that I can upgrade/maintain on my timetable.

Sure you can, it's called a dongle. What you really want is a dumb tv and then plug in your choice of roku, google, amazon, etc..
I agree with the OP and wish TV manufacturers would stick to what they are good at and just produce dumb tvs. If they feel the
need, then sell them with a free roku stick, amazon stick, etc... but stop trying to develop an inhouse solution that will almost
always be subpar to what a 3rd party can offer.

Problem Sovled

[Anonymous Coward]

Just don't supply your Smart TV with the password to your Wi-Fi network.

Dell.com

[denis.b.bergeron]

I always buy my TV at Dell.com, because they have good price for their electronic. Don't buy computer there because they are too priced and too low spec, but the price for their TV are more than honest. They have lot of dumb tv set. By the way, for me the only good smart TV is adding a andoird stick on a dumb tv.

already answered

[ihtoit]

unbundled hardware is expensive because it's expensive to make. Bundled features such as a tv tuner, voice monitoring, tivo, etc., aren't value-added consumer perks, they're incentives for the consumer to part with their privacy and in some cases, their hard earned on an ongoing basis through channel subscriptions and TV licensing. Without those ongoing incentives, there is little to persuade retailers to sell you the hardware. I found the same with laptops. No retailer wanted to sell me a laptop without Windows for the same price minus the cost of an OEM Windows licence (which is the way it should be done), the incentive for them to bundle Windows is £175. I figured and decided it would be less painful for me just to swallow the £5 worth of hurt and ditch the Windows licence at the first opportunity (glad I didn't, Windows 7 is actually pretty decent notwithstanding its glaring faults). That perceived value-added for Joe Sixpack is the Windows licence (which as far as he's concerned is £180 worth but in reality it's a fucking FIVER), but the real incentive for the retailer is less of that, it's service contracts, insurance policies, finance and whatever else they can stuff your shopping cart with (hard drives, headphones, mp3 players, how about a nice velour-lined backpack?). Phones, same thing. An unbundled phone costs what, £600-£1000? Same phone, locked to a single carrier, quick credit check and BAM, your "free" phone is attached to a 24 month contract (that just happens to be about the same or +£200 the cost of the phone) with a limited amount of what you "bought" the contract for in the first place: a meaty data deal with voice minutes and text bundles thrown in. Bundling/unbundling is a giant fucking ripoff.

Just disable the wifi

[wiredog]

Either in the settings by turning it off, or by putting bogus login information in. Or you can block the TVs MAC address at the router.

No wifi, no networking, no smart functionality.

Re:Just disable the wifi

[the_saint1138]

Can't speak for the OP, but the biggest reason I want to avoid smart TVs is reliability.

generally speaking, as code & hardware complexity goes up, reliability goes down.
I don't want a TV with all this built in stuff because it's a lot cheaper to replace my Chromecast if it breaks than my TV.

Smart TVs being somewhat new, there isn't a whole lot of evidence for this, but I expect that they will have shorter lifespans than dumb TVs.

Re:Just don't connect to a network

[ihtoit]

4G as in cellular? Pop out the SIM. Sorted.

Sentence too mangled!

[monkeyzoo]

The second-to-last sentence of the post is so mangled, I have no idea what you are saying (asking?).

"Computer monitors" fit the bill but are almost all 55") LCDs in the sub-$3,000 range anymore?

How about this one...

[uiucgrad]

http://www.amazon.com/LG-Electronics-55LN5400-55-Inch-1080p/dp/B00BB9OOFG/ref=sr_1_4?s=tv&rps=1&ie=UTF8&qid=1423761868&sr=1-4&keywords=lg+55+inch+tv

Re:Don't forget

[Maxwell]

Agreed. I'd love to ditch the tuner. what a pain in the ass having it switch inputs to the tuner automatically if you dare touch certain remote buttons. "Guide" is what kills me, as I usually adjust volume on TV the hit guide. Whoops, have to adjust volume then hit CABLE, then hit guide...but now to clear the guide I have to Exit, exit, input, input, input then cable, then guide again. I'd keep the speakers if I could, but would take no smart, no tuner, no speakers over smart+tuner+speakers.

NEC's professional displays

[Sycraft-fu]

I don't know why you care, since you can always just not use the smart features, but if you insist you must not have them professional monitors fit the bill. NEC makes the ones I generally spec out. Very well built, high brightness, rated for 24/7 operation, etc. You pay for it, of course, since they are commercial grade rather than residential grade.

Re:NEC's professional displays

[forty-2]

Yep - commercial displays are the way to go. I used to love NEC but their failure rates as of late have been pretty abysmal. Check out Samsung's commercial display site if you truly want to drive yourself into a fit of murderous rage. Otherwise, I'd recommend Planar. Their stuff is rock solid and you can pick up a phone and actually talk to a person.
I don't work for them, but I spec their products on a regular basis (both as a consultant and an integrator) and have been very happy with them across the board.
The pro stuff is also more 'geek friendly', with things like well documented control protocols, and user interfaces that don't treat you like a braying moron.

Re:If you don't authorize it, it can't divulge inf

[solios]

This is where Comcast building wifi hotspots into their cable modems becomes pretty damned insidious - how long until devices like this are "pre-authorized" to automatically connect to the mothership through any available wireless connection?

Imagine if a Samsung TV automatically phoned home through your neighbor's Comcast wifi/modem link not because you enabled it but because Samsung had paid Comcast to allow its devices through. And of course this behavior is on by default and block it, thanks to some timely lobbying, is now a violation of the first amendment (or something equally deranged-but-feasible vis-a-vis corporate personhood).

You have no understanding of light

[SuperKendall]

I have a projector that I project onto a very white surface,

Black is fine, because the BRIGHTEST aspects of the image are so bright that the non-illuminated parts of the screen are, in fact, quite black.

If I bring a totally white piece of paper in a cave, and shine a light away from it, will it glow like the su? Of course not.

Modern projectors are usually pretty bright. And you can of course easily provide some darker surface to project upon if you really feel it is an issue.

Re:You have no understanding of light

[dargaud]

Oh Yeah ? And during the day, how black is your screen ? Or you actually live in a cave ?

Re:You have no understanding of light

[SuperKendall]

And during the day, how black is your screen ?

A good projector is still fairly visible even during the day. After all most houses are not made of glass, windows only let in so much light. There's still a lot of contrast between the brightest parts of a projected image from a good projector and the darkest.

You really aren't grasping this contrast thing very well it would seem...

Re:You have no understanding of light

[Frnknstn]

the BRIGHTEST aspects of the image are so bright

Uh, yeah, that's what we mean by 'contrast ratio'? We are saying that even if your room is pitch black, the contrast ratio between the the white wall and the white light will be WORSE than the contrast ration on any modern TV.

And you can of course easily provide some darker surface to project upon

Dude, do YOU understand how light works? If you have a grey wall instead of a while wall, it means that no matter what projecter you use, you will never have white.

Re:You have no understanding of light

[CozmicCharlie]

We have an Epson 8500 projector in a room with 4 windows, projecting onto an 84" white screen, from about 11' away, with little or no visibility issues. Each window is equipted with a thing called a blind. If it's too bright out, or the bulb is getting a bit old, we pull one or two of the blinds partially. I'm guessing curtains would work as well as the blinds. Some problems do not require a technical solution. Oh, and when it's a really bright out, like a sunny, Summer day, we open the blinds and go outside.

Re:You have no understanding of light

[gameboyhippo]

During the day, my basement is still fairly dark.

Re:You have no understanding of light

[SuperKendall]

it means that no matter what projecter you use, you will never have white.

Sigh. Yet another person who knows nothing about projector screens (many of which are in fact grey) or how the brain comprehends color.

I wonder what happens to something grey when you shine something bright enough on it... NAH COULN'T BE.

Tell you what, you should be locked in a cage with the guy who thinks projectors cannot possibly do black, in a battle to the death. The surprise twist is for the good of all humanity we put the cage in a cave and blow the entrance.

Stick a fork in Slashdot, it's apparently been overrun by he Eloi this day.

Re:You have no understanding of light

[thegarbz]

A good projector is still fairly visible even during the day.

And yet even the cheapest TV will still shit all over the picture quality.

Projectors are great for a windowless home theater room. That's where their benefits come to an end.

Re:You have no understanding of light

[SuperKendall]

Projectors are great for a windowless home theater room.

I use one in a basement with windows. It's way better than the TV I threw out (well, recycled).

It's just as good form my experience as any standalone TV set I've seen at houses I've visited.

You may have last seen a project back in the 80's - there have been improvements made.

Re:You have no understanding of light

[Frnknstn]

You say: projector screens, something bright enough

I say: wall, no matter what projector

Pray tell, what model of projector would work on say, a 50% grey painted wall and still give decent color reproduction? What house paint works as well as a projector screen?

What is this mythical reasonably-priced projector that will work as well as a cinema projector, in a normally lit room?

projectors cannot possibly do black

We just went over this... Once again, rather than pretending to be in an H G Wells novel, address the fucking argument. Do you have an example of a projector set up that gives better contrast than a modern TV in reasonable light conditions.

Re:You have no understanding of light

[thegarbz]

No I last saw projectors on Sunday at a video specialist setup in a perfect room. And I left thinking the same thing I always have. It looks good in an ideal environment, it sucks outside of the ideal environment, and even in ideal circumstances other than size a projector can be bested by any TV of the same price in nearly all specs.

Re:You have no understanding of light

[ihtoit]

no projector wall is 50% grey. That is in fact pretty dark. A projector wall made using professional grade paint will be at the most an F5 SVG neutral. In other words, almost but not quite Safe16 SVG Hex3 FF white.

Smart TVs are Telescreens

[DickBreath]

Please let's start calling them what they are.

A Telescreen.

Please stop calling them a Smart TV. That implies something positive about them over ordinary TVs. Also don't qualify dumb TVs as dumb. It is actually smart to prefer an ordinary TV. Let's put the negative focus on Smart TVs, or rather Telescreens, as it should be.

I'll take the "smart" part in a separate box thank you. This allows competition from any vendor. The 'smart' box becomes obsolete much sooner than the TV and can be easily and cheaply replaced. I can have more than one smart box rather than the preselected one built in to a Telescreen. (Amazon, Google, Roku, etc) If I don't like the EULA for one vendor's smart box, it doesn't stop me from buying an outstanding TV.

The public needs to become more aware of this issue so that Telescreens have negative market value.

Re:Don't forget

[jeffmeden]

...to put on your tinfoil hat before you get out of your bed from your lead-lined walled bedroom....

It's not tinfoil-hatism when it's true. Big brother issues aside, there's a very valid point in his post: Why pay for all those extra electronics/failure points when all you want is a display device. Personally, all I want is a screen and speakers with enough ports on the back for my various systems.

Then just shop for those features and focus on making sure the panel supports CEC on/off/input-grab and you can throw away the TVs remote and forget about the "smart" features entirely after you have all your fancy stuff hooked up. If the smart wifi module breaks and you arent using it, who cares?

Projectors are super simple to position

[SuperKendall]

Projectors are harder to position in a home

Not if you place them on the ceiling. You can simply run cabling along the ceiling to where it needs to go.

A projector on the ceiling can go pretty much anywhere.

are significantly more expensive for equal quality

For the size? Don't think so.

require expensive screens if you want decent contrast and visibility

I project onto a piece of why vinyl I think cost me around $10, over a small wood frame I made myself for around another $10. That works great.

So many people on Slashdot today seem to have projector info from the 80's when projectors were not nearly so bright as they are now. Projectors are far more awesome than any TV can ever be, AND you can take them with you someplace else if you want to.

Re:Projectors are super simple to position

[pr0fessor]

Last summer my brother brought over a projector he had from when he was in college it cost around $900 at the time and is comparable to todays $200-$300 projectors. We set up a screen using a unused drop cloth in the back yard against the garage. We had BBQ and watched a few movies the family thought it was great even the neighbor came out and was talking about being reminded of the movies in the park when he was kid only this looked a lot better. I've been considering building a theater in my basement kind of a man cave with a nice hd projector ever since.

Seiki

[Anonymous Coward]

Seiki makes some good "dumb" 4K TVs. I have been quite happy with my 50"

Nope!

[EvilSS]

If you are looking for a dumb 4K display that is above PC monitor size and cheaper or even the same price as a comparable "smart" tv, then the answer is probably no. The only real options you have are A) get the smart TV and never connect it to your network or B) buy a commercial grade display. Option B is going to be much more expensive than Option A. Well I guess there is always option C) Contract with a manufacturer to create a private brand line of your own. Pretty sure option C is not going to scale down to a production run of 1 very well cost wise though.

Own your own cable modem

[sjbe]

This is where Comcast building wifi hotspots into their cable modems becomes pretty damned insidious - how long until devices like this are "pre-authorized" to automatically connect to the mothership through any available wireless connection?

Agreed but then that's part of the reasons why I own my own cable modem> It does not have built in wifi so Comcast can't pull any hijinks and it costs me less since I'm not paying any rental fees. Also fortunately I live far enough away from my neighbors that no wifi signals but my own are within range of my house.

Re:Own your own cable modem

[mrchaotica]

Allowing customer-owned equipment is required by law! The issue is that the FCC can't be bothered to enforce the law. (And by "can't be bothered," I mean "bribed not to.")

Re:Own your own cable modem

[mrchaotica]

Comcast don't have to let you buy theirs, but they shouldn't be able to stop you from buying one from a third-party (e.g. a TiVo or an HDHomeRun + HTPC). Of course, their bribery has convinced the FCC to allow them to encrypt, which means you still have to get a CableCard from them.

Re:Just turn off the Smart TV features

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't manditory.

And yet I'd still have to pay for them to be there, which is a giant rip-off.

Also, not all "smart TVs" will allow you to turn their "smart" features off. The one my parents have pops up a "network connection unavailable, please select from available wifi networks" warning that lasts for a minute every time you turn it on, if you aren't connected to the internet, and has exactly zero options for disabling any of the features, including the ones that wouldn't work anyways because they connect to services and servers that have long since gone out of business.

Personally, I lucked out and found a nice crisp high quality 56" 1080p display that has a pile of inputs, and barely even supports TV channels. It was the only non-smart TV in the whole store at the time (Future Shop in Canada), was the display model, and they didn't have a box or even records of when it came into the store, so the manager let me have it for $150. I've checked there a few times since, and the only non-smart TVs they ever have are around the 16" to 24" size variety. Anything bigger and you're paying double price for a giant pile of features most people don't want and will never use.

Jesus fuck when did this site change from a tech savvy bunch of geeks to a bunch of dribbling retards?

When they started pandering to morons with zero ability to understand problems. Like you.

Re:If you don't authorize it, it can't divulge inf

[ColdWetDog]

Yeah, because disabling it in SOFTWARE makes it impossible for the tv to activate it when your not looking right?
If you want to be totally safe, you need to cripple the hardware itself!

1. Take large roll of aluminum foil
2. Wrap TV carefully, don't allow any gaps
3. Take a small piece of foil, roll it up to look like a wire, tape it to the bigger piece (use duct tape here), and push it into the GROUND line of your wall outlet.
4. The GROUND line, stupid.

There is no problem..

[SavSoul]

It seems simple to just not connect it. Just do not plug it in and do not configure a wifi connection.

Re:Don't forget

[JMJimmy]

I care because it increases the cost of the device, increases electrical consumption in operating the device (again, costing more money), generates extra heat which shortens the lifespan of the electronics, creates possible failure points which could cause electrical shorts/interference with other parts of the device. Then there's the software aspect, bugs which require patching, "features" which can't be turned off, slowness in turning the device on and off, advertising when no signal is present, etc.

I want my devices to be smart, not my displays. I want my displays to be interoperable through several generations of devices.

Seiki

[Anonymous Coward]

Seiki 4k, available at Amazon

No. Just don't use it.

[Maxwell]

I realize it's a great /. tradition to completely ignore the original question and try to dance around it with alternatives, but just ignoring it is not an option.

For example don't user the remote control that came with it, because it has dedicated app buttons that will take 30seconds to fail to launch netflix for you, or worse, offer to walk your wife through wi-fi setup. So you need another remote too. And since they are special your universal remote won't work out of the box, so you'll need to to button to button remapping to get that to work.

You know what would be even better than turning wi-fi off? Not having it at all...kinda of like what the OP asks for.

To answer the OP's question you can buy commercial TV's (like hotel rooms or restaurants buy for their active menus) and they have no smart features. They are widely available at commerical type stores. Lg also makes them up to 65" (we have some installed here). Big, dumb panel. Here is their site:

http://www.lg.com/us/commercia...

Here's a 65" one from Staples:

http://www.staples.com/LG-Supe...

No. Just don't use it.

[Maxwell]

They also drop in price slower than the mass market ones, so expect to pay more for the same size....

Re:Just don't connect to a network

[Wing_Zero]

A friend of mine got a TV (can't remember the brand) from a raffle. he doesn't have internet, and the tv will NOT let him use it if he isn't connected to the network to agree to the TOS.

This is where we are heading......

Re:Just turn off the Smart TV features

[Pope]

The most secure web server is the one that's not even installed.

Then it's not a web server, is it?

Re:Don't forget

[tlhIngan]

Big brother issues aside, there's a very valid point in his post: Why pay for all those extra electronics/failure points when all you want is a display device. Personally, all I want is a screen and speakers with enough ports on the back for my various systems.

Because those failure points will still be there in a "dumb" TV.

The TV needs a video processor and modern video processors already have multi cores with GPUs and all that. You can thank the smartphone revolution, but the SoCs used in TVs are often derived from the SoCs used in smartphones. Enough so that TV-specific SoCs can be more expensive.

So you're already talking about a TV with dual or quad core processors, 1GB of RAM, and other things. WiFi/Ethernet isn't pricey (and often bundled because most SoC vendors encourage bundling - if you go Broadcom, and use Broadcom WiFi/Ethernet ICs too, you get a break on the whole package).

Basically, TVs have gotten to the point where thanks to smartphones, they're swimming with CPU power, already run Android or Linux, and are sitting there as required pieces for the video processing chain. "Smart" features are merely software items that are trivial to add on because they come "for free".

Plus, it's one of the few ways to get Netflix in 4K. Netflix doesn't support 4K on PCs.

Re:Don't forget

[boristdog]

Holy cats, yes.

I run a weekend cabin rental business on the side and at least once a month I get a renter who pushed the wrong button on the TV or DVD remote that screws up everything and I have to go help them figure out how to get it back to a state where they can watch a DVD.

At the very least put a "Reset" button that can be programmed to put everything back to a particular state with one touch.

Samsung has Stupid TVs as well.

[CraigCruden]

For each "SMART" TV they typically have the same model with none of the "SMART" features for cheaper. I don't need or want any of the smart features, so I never buy Samsung's SMART TVs but I have bought the non-SMART equivalent. Many people seem to think ahh a "SMART" brand TV for more money and don't realize that they are paying for "SMART" features that they never had plans to use. SMART just sounds like a better TV.....

Re:Samsung has Stupid TVs as well.

[CraigCruden]

In addition there are often hidden menus that you can look up to turn off features in TVs. Things like switching it into "Hotel" mode.

Re:Samsung has Stupid TVs as well.

[CraigCruden]

It is usually different for different model groups. For samsung it is probably one of the following: "Service Menu Code For Samsung TV: There are many codes available for accessing service menu in various Samsung TV models. You can try following codes one by one until you get access to service menu: First power off your TV using the remote, then press following buttons quickly on the remote: Mute + 1 + 8 + 2 + Power Display/Info + Menu + Mute + Power Display/Info + P.STD + Mute + Power P.STD + Help + Sleep + Power P.STD + Menu + Sleep + Power Sleep + P.STD + Mute + Power You can press Channel Up/Down buttons to navigate between available options. To change their values, press Volume Up/Down buttons."

Re:Samsung has Stupid TVs as well.

[CraigCruden]

Dam it got rid of the new lines. (I will try typing). Service Menu Code For Samsung TV: There are many codes available for accessing service menu in various Samsung TV models.

You can try following codes one by one until you get access to service menu:

Mute + 1 + 8 + 2 + Power
Display/Info + Menu + Mute + Power
Display/Info + P.STD + Mute + Power
P.STD + Help + Sleep + Power
P.STD + Menu + Sleep + Power
Sleep + P.STD + Mute + Power
You can press Channel Up/Down buttons to navigate between available options. To change their values, press Volume Up/Down buttons.
Be careful about certain options - you can change things that could do nasty things to your TV.

Re:Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I ended up buying a smart TV even though I don't use any of the smart TV features. Several companies I looked at treat dumb TVs as a lower tier and smart TVs as their upper tier, and not just in terms of the software functionality. Or at the least, because the smart TVs were newer models, they had other newer parts. The screens they use can be different, with different performances. In my case, there still was a literal $20 between a smart TV model and the dumb TV model of the same size, but the smart TV had better color and a wider viewing angle because it used a newer screen. So when they push new features, they update other parts of the TV too, while even if still selling separate models without those features, not updating them.

Is it just me?

[JustNiz]

I have EXACTLY the same issue with cars.

I really don't want (to buy, maintain, or the extra weight, complexity and/or immediate outdatedness of) LCD touchscreens, navigation, parking aids, multimedia systems, blind spot monitors, voice control, OnStar, 57 airbags, hybrid technology, my car connecting to its manufacturer, etc etc.
These "features" are pretty much all literally unavoidable in all cars these days.

I ESPECIALLY don't EVER want a car that drives itself.

I wish someone would just make a new version what used to pass for a sporty car about 20-30 years ago. I.e.a simple, ergonomic cabin that uses physical controls, analog dials, a good motor and a well-sorted suspension, all without the need for any onboard computers at all. I say this as a software engineer, even I know there are some places that are better off without any technology and computers, and the car is one of the best examples I can think of.

Re:Is it just me?

[dfm3]

These "features" are pretty much all literally unavoidable in all cars these days.

True for some models, but not for all, despite what dealers want you to think. The reason that fully loaded vehicles are pushed so heavily is because it means more money for the dealerships, who can charge a ridiculous premium for each extra feature. Even worse is the practice of bundling features into a "package" with one feature you want and another half dozen that you don't. If you aren't set on a specific model and can find a dealer who is willing to work with you (none of the usual, "I can't get one of those on my lot without the extras" bs), you can definitely find a vehicle without those features.

For example, I have a friend who just purchased a Honda Fit with no extra features, manual transmission, manual everything else - probably not the vehicle you had in mind but it does lack all of those extras.

Re:Is it just me?

[Ogi_UnixNut]

Well, why don't you buy a 20-30 year old car then? I mean, I fully agree with you on all counts, as a software/computer guy, I know that there are some places where shoving in a computer is not a solution (I find people who don't fully understand computers, and see them as magical black boxes, are mostly guilty of this).

As such, I went out and got myself a car from 1982. Simple, fast enough to be fun (due to being really light compared to modern cars, it actually ends up being faster then them, despite being low in the power department) and really easy to fix.

I mean, seriously simple to maintain. As it was built mostly by people rather than robots, it was designed to be easy for a human to take apart and put together. Also, second hand parts are really cheap. Additionally, I can see that within 5-10 years, most of the parts (apart from the drive train) could be made on a decent spec 3D printer. I find 30 years is roughly the gap between what is "state of the art" and what can be done by an enthusiast in his shed.

There is one piece of computing in it though, which is the ECU, but being 30+ years old, and based on the 8051 uC, it has been reverse engineered multiple times, and could probably be reimplemented on a raspberry pi if push came to shove.

Re:Is it just me?

[fluffernutter]

They need to make a 'Car Lite'.

Re:Is it just me?

[JustNiz]

I like the idea of a TJ or a wrangler, but its surprising how expensive even old/very high mileage ones are.
Also AC and a somewhat airtight cabin are both pretty much must-haves here in Phoenix in the summer.

Re:Is it just me?

[kheldan]

Do you think you'd like driving a small pickup truck? They're about as basic as you can get, especially if you get it with a 5-speed stickshift, and you get better fuel economy, too.

Re:Is it just me?

[JustNiz]

Of course I have. Call me strange if yuou want but I actually LIKE driving, especially on long open roads you find on roadtrips.

Re:Is it just me?

[ggrocca]

Tell us the model!

Re:Is it just me?

[Trogre]

I agree with you on nearly every count.

LCD touchscreens for a vehicle where the operator is supposed to have his/her eyes on the road is just stupid. Any feature that lets another party remotely disable it /will/ eventually be abused. An automatic update system will eventually download an update that has somehow missed one step of testing and result in unpredicted probably dangerous behaviour. And don't get me started on the folly of self-driving cars.

There are however some "modern" features that I actually like:

Parking aids. I'm talking basic sonars and cameras here, not self-parking mechanisms. No computer required. Although admittedly a fresnel lens stuck to the back window helps a lot too.

Engine computers. Massive power-to-weight ratio improvements and fuel savings have been realized in recent times by otherwise-dumb computers constantly measuring and adjusting engine properties such as air/fuel mix and injection rate. I don't enjoy wasting fuel.

Are you referring to Hybrid in the sense of electric motors and batteries that are charged by regenerative braking? That's something I don't have any experience with but I'm not aware of any downside to them.

Re:Is it just me?

[JustNiz]

>> Are you referring to Hybrid in the sense of electric motors and batteries that are charged by regenerative braking? That's something I don't have any experience with but I'm not aware of any downside to them.

Extra weight, complexity, extra cost to buy and maintain.

Re:Is it just me?

[Ogi_UnixNut]

Porsche 944 (although the 914 family is also good, you can fit 911 engines in those).

Because they are front engined and watercooled, purists don't see them as "pure Porsche's", so they don't have a huge markup like the classic 911's.

Still plenty fast though, derived from the 924GTP Lemans racer, so a good base to improve from, if tuning is your thing.

They were the most popular Porsche of the 80's. Hundreds of thousands were made, so to this day there are parts all over the place. Plus as they are heavily tuned and raced, all sorts of third-party performance parts suppliers are available.

Re:Is it just me?

[mrchaotica]

You say "small pickup" as if you think such a thing still exists....

Re:Is it just me?

[toddestan]

Yeah, but that stuff is becoming standard on many models. It's started on luxury cars, and it's working it's way down through mainstream models and eventually will hit the base models. Just like things such as power locks and air conditioning are standard on almost every new car nowdays. Today, if you want something like a Honda Fit you can still manage to get something that's pretty much just a car, but if you want something equivalent to a luxury or sports car from 20 years ago (in terms of performance, build quality, and similar equipment level) good luck.

Re:Is it just me?

[toddestan]

I was recently surprised to find out that, at least in theory, you can order a Jeep Patriot with a manual transmission, crank windows, and no A/C. Now that's a Jeep. Though my guess is that you'll have a hard time actually trying to get something like that from a dealer.

Re:If you don't authorize it, it can't divulge inf

[wasteoid]

I did that and now my TV doesn't work!

Limited market

[davidwr]

There is a very limited market for "dumb" TVs that "smart" TVs don't fill just as well.

That is, almost everyone who thinks they want a "dumb" TV will choose a "smart" one if the price of the "dumb" one is even $1 more than the "smart" one.

There are some markets where a "smart" TV is just not an option. Any location where policy prohibits any device that's even capable of being connected to a network, such as prisons, come to mind. Another place is where the "smart" devices are perceived as being more likely to be abused/vandalized/stolen than a "dumb" one, such as hotel rooms in high-theft-risk locations. However, most of these users would be perfectly happy with a tuner-less monitor rather than a television, thereby making the question about "dumb TELEVISIONS" irrelevant to them.

Problems with projectors

[sjbe]

Not if you place them on the ceiling. You can simply run cabling along the ceiling to where it needs to go.

Run cabling "along the ceiling"? Maybe you like your house to look like crap but personally I think running wires along the ceiling looks terrible and my wife would feel even stronger about it. To do it so it doesn't look all JV requires actually putting holes in the ceiling/walls and is a substantial project. It also requires hiring an electrician unless you are planning to violate a whole bunch of code and safety regulations.

A projector on the ceiling can go pretty much anywhere.

No it cannot because you have to project it onto something. Maybe every wall you have is a blank white wall but that doesn't describe my house. Furthermore once you mount it it's staying there and is non-trivial to move elsewhere.

For the size? Don't think so.

Then you haven't looked into it. Unless you are talking about >80" screen size, projectors lose to flatscreens at the same price points. Good luck getting a good cheap 4K projector plus accessories cheaper than a 70" flatscreen.

So many people on Slashdot today seem to have projector info from the 80's when projectors were not nearly so bright as they are now. Projectors are far more awesome than any TV can ever be, AND you can take them with you someplace else if you want to.

I thought you were just telling us to mount it to the ceiling.

Re:Problems with projectors

[Reapman]

We have a "fake" ceiling - similar to an office environment. honestly if your building a finished basement I highly recommend it, gives you a ton of flexibility. What I lose out to in quality that only a video-phile would notice, I gain in an 8 foot screen. Can't actually buy a TV that big as far as I know, at least not unless your Elon Musk level rich.

I'm sorry you don't like projectors, and they don't suit you - but to blow them off completely is a bad way of going about it. It's all about being the right tool for the right job.

Re:Problems with projectors

[SuperKendall]

No it cannot because you have to project it onto something.

Even if you don't have a blank wall (most homes in fact do have walls) it's very easy to put a large piece of something flat together to project on. I use a cheap $10 vinyl sheet.

Run cabling "along the ceiling"? Maybe you like your house to look like crap

If you run cabling carefully and the cables match the ceiling color it can look just fine. That said I did simply put a small hole in the ceiling and run the cables between floor joists, it didn't require much effort to do that.

If you want to talk "convenience" then how about the substantial effort it takes to put in a screen anywhere near as large as what you get with a projector? I have a 70" diagonal image, how many people would it take to move around a TV that had that size of screen? What happens when it breaks down? What if I want to bring it somewhere for a party? There are massive inconveniences to "real" TV sets that I don't have to worry about. I also can fling all the Wii controllers I like right into the screen without care.

Good luck getting a good cheap 4K projector plus accessories cheaper than a 70" flatscreen.

Admittedly that is true right now for 4k projectors, but it's not true for 1080p projectors. In a year or two projectors will probably reach equality.

I thought you were just telling us to mount it to the ceiling.

I'll give you a pass on this since you don't seem to know much about projectors, but most mounts have a part that attaches to the ceiling, then a part you put on the projector that attaches to the ceiling mount so you can easily remove the projector. On mine I can just turn three large knobs, twist the projector 90 degrees and it detaches from the mount.

Seiki +2

[gavron]

I also second the Seiki 39". Got mine from Amazon.com when it was $400. Now it's 2/3 of that.

On my NUC it actually uses the 4K resolution but I rarely use it as a monitor because of the low refresh rate (15Hz) at that resolution.

It is an AWESOME TV!!! I have it hooked up to
- Roku3
- Google Chromecast
- Amazon Fire Stick

If I had to find downsides it would be
- no "discrete code" to switch to a particular input. One selects "source" then scrolls up or down from the current source to the eventual source input. This makes things tougher for scene-remotes.

Ehud

Re:Seiki +2

[Wolfrider]

> If I had to find downsides it would be no "discrete code" to switch to a particular input

--You might be able to get around this with an HDMI splitter.

http://www.amazon.com/LB1-High...

--This is the one I bought, but it's 3-input HDMI:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...

--It works perfectly, autoswitches even when not plugged into a power strip.

EOL units

[ggendel]

It is possible. With LG getting out of the plasma market, I found a new 60" one for $400. My only complaint is that LG has always been stingy with their inputs. This one only has one HDMI input.

Wait for HDR

[Stele]

Don't buy one now. High-dynamic-range television is coming, and a consortium of TV suppliers was announced at COMDEX recently. They will work together on coming up with a single standard for HDR. Netflix has also promised to deliver HDR content by year's end. It would be silly to buy a 4K panel that can only process rec-709 now when HDR is right around the corner.

Re:Wait for HDR

[fluffernutter]

And then you will be paying peak dollar and quickly finding yourself pining after the next new wave.

Re:Wait for HDR

[brantondaveperson]

but HDR makes watching TV a lot like looking out a window.

Still marginally less entertaining though.

Simply don't give it it any network access

[BuckaBooBob]

Your Already looking for a Dumb TV that doesn't have any capability of network access... Just simply don't give it any.. Problem solved and you get the low price point... and if you feeling your paying for something you don't use you will see you getting a discount in the long run... Its the product of the economics of scale...

Your looking for a item that would be for a very niche market and the price will be influenced by that... Just treat it like a dumb TV and it will be...

Kind of like a Car... If you live in central america and have no needed for a heater in your car are you going to be able to find a car without a heater that meets your other needs? Probably not... or if you do will you be getting the best value for your money? very unlikely

Re:Just don't connect to a network

[Qzukk]

Turn on 3D mode and you can tilt your head to see behind the "SIM Card Error! Contact Support Immediately!" popup in the center of the screen.

Re:If you don't authorize it, it can't divulge inf

[craighansen]

Or if they put in a cell-phone data link, like the non-Android Kindles (and some Android Kindles) and preauthorize the data services.

Re:Don't forget

[The-Ixian]

People rent cabins to watch DVDs?
 
Buy some old CRT TVs, that would seem to fit the cabin experience better anyway...

Re:Developer 4k Display

[craighansen]

Seiki 39" UHDs are cheap and can work just fine for text display.

Re:Just don't connect to a network

[The-Ixian]

I would assume that this is a "one time" thing... even still, how can you expect everyone to have an Internet connection? This is America after all....

Re:No. Just don't use it.

[leonbev]

He wants a 4K display, though, and most (if not all) of the TV's on that site are 1080p.

I'd imagine that it will still be awhile before we're going to have commercial grade 4K displays, since they aren't commodity parts yet.

Sceptre 55 Walmart $400

[retroworks]

If you decide you want "smart", add a Roku.

Re:Don't forget

[bedroll]

The problem with this argument is that there isn't really a price difference between smart and dumb TVs anymore. While the failure point argument is valid, I wouldn't worry too much about it. If you never use the smart features then those parts are not going to have a high failure rate.

More importantly, if you do buy a smart TV and chose not to use its features you will want to make sure you spend some time with the remote in the store. You'll want to either check it out in a store that doesn't have wifi or that allows you to disable it on the TV to test it out. Find out how well it works as a simple screen. Is it quick to switch between inputs? Is the remote good enough or does it at least support using a Harmony replacement? Are interfaces slow because the software on it is too heavy?

Basically, I'm advocating that you just don't care what features the TV has that you don't use and instead find the cheapest set where the features you do want to use work well. If that set has smart features, don't use them and you probably won't have an issue.

Re:If you don't authorize it, it can't divulge inf

[Enigma2175]

Yeah, because disabling it in SOFTWARE makes it impossible for the tv to activate it when your not looking right?
If you want to be totally safe, you need to cripple the hardware itself!

And how hard is that? In my home, the wifi is encrypted so if the TV connects via wifi, I simply don't give it the key. If it connects via ethernet, I disconnect the ethernet cable. It's not too hard to prevent the TV from phoning home.

As for the original question, at this time it doesn't seem like there are too many options for this. I bought a "smart" tv several years ago, I thought it would be helpful since I wanted to be able to stream Netflix without getting a third-party box. The interface is terrible, it's very slow and unresponsive. There haven't been any updates to the "NetTV" portion of the software, so pretty much the only thing worthwhile is Netflix - most of the other services it supports either are useless or don't even exist anymore. If the company cared about providing updates and staying current with services it might be worth it but there is no motivation for the company to provide software updates since they would prefer I just buy a new TV if I want access to current services. With things like Chromecast and FireTV, it makes a lot more sense to get a dumb TV and add the smart features you want via a cheap dongle rather than paying hundreds of dollars for the TV manufacturer to add the same hardware with a crappier interface to the TV.

Re:Don't forget

[Tokolosh]

You might not use the features, but they might be active all the same, and snooping on you. Even if you have not configured them or think you have turned them off.

Re:Don't forget

[bigtrike]

Maintaining inventory isn't cheap on such a large and expensive item.

Re:If you don't authorize it, it can't divulge inf

[ColdWetDog]

We're making a Faraday cage here. Bonus points - You don't have to watch '50 Shades of Grey'.

Get a PC monitor

[Blaskowicz]

Maybe around 32" can be enough?

I question the need for a giant monitor (55", 65" etc.) in the first place. I don't even think they look good as you're looking at LCD motion artifacts, other LCD failings and excess brightness beamed at your eyes.

There's now a 40" PC monitor even, Philips BDM4065UC. Just what you're looking for with plenty of inputs except that according to the review I've just looked up, the scaling of HD sources is a bit crap. It shows content without processing it and has low input lag. Perhaps good if you use a PC with displayport or otherwise have players, receiver etc. that scale to 4K on their own. And oh, the HDMI is 1.4 not 2.0

Re:Developer 4k Display

[Blaskowicz]

As I said on the bottom of the thread there's Philips BDM4065UC. It's an actual monitor, or a TV turned into an actual monitor so at the least you know you can have the pixels transmitted at RGB, get 60Hz and have no processing.

Re:Just don't connect to a network

[ArhcAngel]

You could have at least provided a link!

Re:If you don't authorize it, it can't divulge inf

[Nutria]

The electronics won't appreciate the ventilation slits being covered. Why not make the Faraday cage out of mesh/screen?

Re:Just don't connect to a network

[the_B0fh]

Slashdot already covered the hacking your TV through the TV signal previously. Tell me you are going to block TV signals as well (OTA, cable box, etc)?

Re:Enough with the first world problems

[Grishnakh]

All of us here live in the third world.

The first world is Mercury. No humans live there.

Element 55"

[phorm]

I noticed that Target - which is pulling out of Canada - has a bunch of 4k 55" Element TV's. These are going for around $500 (less if you're in Canada and get the "liquidation" discount of 20%).

I wasn't able to find a huge amount of info on them, as it appears that Element made them exclusively for Target, but the few reviews I found seem to indicate they're not half bad.

Re:Just don't connect to a network

[CodePwned]

The manual directs you how to bypass this. He's using an LG TV.

Re:Monitor, not TV

[kenj123]

I agree with parent. 720 projectors are great. I have both a lcd tv and projector in my basement. I can pull the screen down infront of the tv and watch the projector instead. I greatly prefer the projector for movies. partly the bigger screen, but also the 'mat' look of the projector screen looks more realistic than the 'glossy' or I call it 'wet' look of an lcd. Often with the projector I have to go back in a movie and watch scenes again because I was so lost in the picture. never happened on the lcd tv (Samsung).

Re:Don't forget

[Qzukk]

I house-sat for my sister once years ago, and she had an AV receiver that was hooked up to a DVD player. Once I got bored watching DVDs I tried hooking up my playstation but couldn't get any sound. It took me several hours to accidentally realize that the genius who created it thought it would be a great idea to have completely independent audio and video inputs so even after selecting Video 2, the DVD audio (which was off) was still coming out the speakers.

You aren't paying for them

[grahamsz]

You aren't paying a penny for the typical "smart" tv feature-set. If samsung chose to make a dumb version of a tv then it'd cost at least as much because they'd effectively have the same BOM but end up with a product that was designed for a niche market.

Technology aside, i'm pretty sure TV makers actually collect from netflix/spotify/hulu and whoever else is pre-installed, which ultimately makes the smart product cheaper still.

It's much like adding video features to digital cameras - the extra features bring the final price down.

Why can't you just not connect it?

[fluffernutter]

Am I missing something? Why not buy a smart TV but don't connect it to the internet if that is the TV you want?

More features, not more screen real estate

[Kjella]

Back in May 2011 I bought a LG 60LD550, 60" 1080p LCD for about $1050 + VAT. It was on clearance sale because it had no 3D, no "smart" functionality, it was only a dumb 2D screen and that was uncool. Even now in 2015 the cheapest 60" 1080p LCD is LG 60LB561V for about $840 + VAT, that's 20% down in over 3.5 years. I still can't get a similar 65" TV for the same money.

Taking a panel, putting in a cheap box and selling it cheap is a low margin business. I have an uncle of mine who bought into that whole "smart" thing, they sold him a slightly smaller TV for almost twice the price. When you look at Apple TV, Chromecast etc. you realize they added $100 of smarts and sold it for $1000 extra. If I was a for-profit company hell yeah I'd push smart TVs. And lately UHD has been all the hype I have a 28" UHD monitor and I really don't see the point in a 60" TV, I'd minimum have to upgrade to 75" for that to make sense but that's $3500 + VAT for a Samsung UE75HU7505. Maybe when BluRay 4K is established and getting high bitrate native UHD is easy, Netflix is selling hype with UHD streams at less than BluRay bitrates.

Re:Enough with the first world problems

[Wargames]

Just because it is difficult to conceive of life as we know it living on (or in) The Sun doesn't mean there isn't any.

UHD/4K is useless.

[_Shorty-dammit]

http://isthisretina.com/ will or should prove to you that there is no such thing as affordable UHD/4K. You need a screen way too big, and/or you have to sit way too close, to make anything over standard HD worthwhile. $85,000 for a 120" TV that you have to sit 8' from does not make much sense to me. If it makes sense to you, good for you. ;)

Re:Don't forget

[CozmicCharlie]

I care because it increases the cost of the device, increases electrical consumption in operating the device (again, costing more money), generates extra heat which shortens the lifespan of the electronics, creates possible failure points which could cause electrical shorts/interference with other parts of the device. Then there's the software aspect, bugs which require patching, "features" which can't be turned off, slowness in turning the device on and off, advertising when no signal is present, etc.

I want my devices to be smart, not my displays. I want my displays to be interoperable through several generations of devices.

And it contains a microphone that is always on waiting for you to say something important or incriminating.

'Advertising' style HDTVs

[kheldan]

OP probably won't see this as there are already over 200 comments, but here's what I know: They make/sell HDTV monitors that don't even have so much as an HDTV tuner in them, and they're intended for commercial use for things like menu boards, advertising, etc. They're not particularly cheap, though, compared to a regular consumer-grade HDTV, but if price is no object then that's one way to go. The other way to go is to buy a freakishly large computer monitor and use that, or as others have suggested, just don't connect the thing to your network at all, without a data connection the so-called 'smart' features are disabled anyway.

On an associated note, I'm surprised the hacker community hasn't come up wtih hacked firmware to load onto 'smart' HDTVs to do specifically this sort of thing, or at least give you the option of 'lobotomizing' your HDTV so it is just a monitor.

Re:Just don't connect to a network

[Nethemas the Great]

Not quite that simple. Even if you blacklist the TV on your router, your neighbor can still offer it service.

TCL

[jowifi]

TCL is a relatively recent entrant to the US market. I think they're a Chinese company. Their web site shows a 58" HD and a 50" 4k TV that don't list any smart TV functions. I have a 40" version that has a good complement if inputs, but no smart features beyond a USB port. It is even able to access an OTA program guide.

Re:Don't forget

[nevermore94]

Look for a "Demo Mode" in the manual. When I first got my older non-smart Samsung TV it would reset to defaults every time it was power cycled. This got really annoying really quick if you wanted to tune your color temperatures at all, but might be great in your situation.

Re:Just don't connect to a network

[Trogre]

That sounds particular insidious. Can you please give the brand of the TV so we know what to avoid?

Thanks.

Re:If you don't authorize it, it can't divulge inf

[ProfessionalCookie]

BTW, I had a 802.11 CPE that I needed to disconnect for a minute, keeping the power on. Rather than pull it off the mount I wrapped it completely, dish and all in foil but...it stayed connected and kept passing data. This is a 2 mile connection at 5Ghz 100mW TX power, a Ubiquiti NanoBridge M5 22dBi. I put on two more layers and finally it disconnected. So play it safe, 3 layers.

Westinghouse used to produce TV *monitors*

[rwyoder]

They were available in 37" & 42" under the model numbers LVM-37W# & LVM-42W#, where # was the version number.
They were 1080 LCD units, with *no* tuner.
They had all the usual analog inputs, plus (2) DVI inputs and an HDMI input.
I'm still using the 37" I bought years ago, wishing I'd opted for the 42".

Re:Don't forget

[mjwx]

...to put on your tinfoil hat before you get out of your bed from your lead-lined walled bedroom....

It's not tinfoil-hatism when it's true. Big brother issues aside, there's a very valid point in his post: Why pay for all those extra electronics/failure points when all you want is a display device. Personally, all I want is a screen and speakers with enough ports on the back for my various systems.

Yep, less to go wrong.

These days I find myself more tempted by the cheap Chinese/Korean "unkown" brands like Conia and Kogan here in Australia. They're often the same panels bought direct from Samsung and Meizu and LG but have less "smarts" and a different brand slapped on the front. If all you care about is a panel, you may as well ignore the major brands.

Re:Just don't connect to a network

[thegarbz]

I hate to be master of the obvious:

1. Buy TV
2. Connect TV to Ethernet'
3. Click Accept
4. Unplug Ethernet cable.

Re:If you don't authorize it, it can't divulge inf

[thegarbz]

Yeah, because disabling it in SOFTWARE makes it impossible for the tv to activate it when your not looking right?
If you want to be totally safe, you need to cripple the hardware itself!

Wait. You mean your home network is setup such that any device can magically connect to it at will, without passwords or anything?

+1 commercial displays

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

We don't buy consumer displays at work for signage as they need to be on 14+ hours a day for years.

Commercial displays are what you are looking for. Sony has them, nec has some, im sure others. Prepare to pay more, double or triple the consumer cost. They are much more durable with prolonged use and you will probably not have to replace it for 10+ years. We have some plasmas from 2002 still running fine with the above dutycycle for instance.

They have features such as scheduling, remote turn on and are just simply built better. But you gotta pay.

 

Now we are targeting dead tech?

[SuperKendall]

Compare that to a Plasma TV,

Why should I when they are dying.

Yes, Plasma TV's have amazing contrast - which is an utterly irrelevant fact in 2015.

Frankly even though the blacks are a little better there's no way I'd buy one of any size due to how delicate and heavy the beasts are. Projectors are vastly more practical than Plasma.

Even decent cheap projectors now are as good as LCD TV's, which are all you can find anymore... and you can always control viewing conditions to improve a projected image to your liking if you are fussy.

Re:Don't forget

[The_Myth]

This AC needs serious +1's

I bought one

[InvisiBill]

I picked up a Samsung UN65FH6001F in a 2013 Black Friday deal at Best Buy for under $1,000. It's very simple as far as current TV features go, but it's a great screen if you don't need 50 inputs and 200 apps on your TV.

I think the trend is to make every TV "smart" because it costs them little to nothing to put the existing "smart" chip in the TV, and it gives them more features to list on the box. Worst case scenario, they figure people simply won't use it if they don't want it. I expect the dumb TVs to become harder and harder to find, but you might still find the occasional gem out there. Mine was a BB-specific model, and wasn't even on Samsung's site at first (had to submit a ticket to get them to add it to even register the warranty).

Re:Just don't connect to a network

[tepples]

I don't see how clicking Accept would work if the other end of the Ethernet cable goes to a subnet of 192.168/16 with no Internet uplink.

Re:Just don't connect to a network

[ihtoit]

my phone doesn't do that, it maintains full functionality - including the ability to dial out for the emergency services. That thing hasn't had a SIM in it for almost its entire service life (4 years 11 months and counting), yet I can still use the audio player, voice recorder, camera... the only indication that it doesn't have a SIM in it is the text where it would normally display the name of the connected carrier, "EMERGENCY CALLS ONLY".

Get a dumb smart TV

[iamacat]

Not every Smart TV has a microphone, camera or any of Samsung's spying ambitions. Most just have slow Netflix and Vudu apps and 3 HDMI ports. I would guess there is some profit sharing arrangement with included providers that makes the TV cheaper than it would be without mediocre hardware to allow these apps. After all, there is an $40 Fire TV stick with much wider capabilities.

So relax, buy the TV and don't use these apps. Personally I find them handy as the last resort when I moved other devices to another room or don't want to hunt for my cell phone or remote. But nobody is forcing you to even configure WiFi to enable them.

Re:Just don't connect to a network

[queazocotal]

Just be aware that that doesn't work everywhere.
You don't get emergency calls in the uk, for example.

Re:Just don't connect to a network

[ihtoit]

uh, I would say "yes you do", but there again I only live here, the fuck do I know?

Consider industrial monitors

[Barryke]

Consider industrial panels, for digital signage perhaps. They're not cheaper (in contrary) but these are rigid and simply work .. and lack the excess smart features.
Most are meant to integrate in a wall, either framed/sunken or just really flat and bolted on.

*shivers* It appears even this page has "SMART" all over it.. http://www.samsung.com/us/busi...

Re:If you don't authorize it, it can't divulge inf

[sjames]

Then your neighbor puts up an open WiFi and your TV phones home...

Re:Don't forget

[MichaelMacDonald]

I use a logitech harmony keyboard. It's a little quirky, but I only use the remote functions I want to use, and assign them to the keyboard. I haven't seen my remote since I bought my TV. That said, I would like a stupid tv, for sure. My next one will be 4k, and I would rather have it stripped down.

Smart TV, dumb purchase.

[Shirley Marquez]

The most I will pay to get a smart TV instead of a dumb one is the cost of a Chromecast, Fire Stick, Roku Stick, etc. That's the upper bound of its value to me, because I can turn a dumb TV into a smart one by adding an external device. Within three years I will probably have to add an external device anyway because the built in smart features will be obsolete. So really, what I will pay extra for a smart TV is zero.

Re:Buy an old TV

[messymerry]

A friend of mine got one of those from his neighbor. It weighs about 300 lbs. Damn near got a hernia helping him move it. I don't know why anybody would buy a big screen TV anymore. I got an LED projector for a great price and it only weighs about 5 lbs. I will never go back to a TV.

Re:Just don't connect to a network

[mrchaotica]

You clearly aren't master of the obvious, since you missed the fact that forcing someone to accept "terms" to use his own goddamn property is offensive and downright dangerous to society (because it's attacking the very concept of property rights).

Re:Enough with the first world problems

[Grishnakh]

Which dwarf planet are you from, Makemake, Eris, or something else?

Looking for a dumb TV

[petervandervos]

Just for Christmas I was looking for a new TV. Not 55" but 47" but all brands have the whole range of screen size. I checked out all models a local big shop (Mediamarkt) had and non of them was dumb.

When the TV came (a LG model) I installed it with network connected. Upon installing it asked if it could send information to LG and I declined (needed for giving suggestions what to watch). Later it ask if it could send audio to its server which I also declined (needed for audio control). If you want to you can change the setting in the menu.

From the smart part of the tv I only use the ability to watch tv I missed and to play movies from a Serviio server (because Plex couldn't get the subtitles right).

Re:Just don't connect to a network

[ihtoit]

This. MY property, I decide when and how I use it.

What this is, is a hook for subscription spam and (in the UK) the TV Licence Tax. It doesn't matter if you use a TV panel as a computer monitor, the point is that it contains a receiver, as such the assumption will be made on the balance of probabilities that because you are ABLE to receive a broadcast signal you USE that ability. The fact that you DON'T is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. You're on record as having purchased TV receiving equipment, as far as the LAW is concerned you are liable for the TV tax.

(I do not buy TV receiving equipment of any description from any establishment that "requires" me to give over my address details. It's none of their fucking business).

Re:Enough with the first world problems

[ihtoit]

2709 Sagan.

Re:Which would look best with my VCR?

[toddestan]

What a silly question. Unless you have S-VHS, there's no reason to go above 1080p.

Re:Don't forget

[Shirley Marquez]

Problem is, although they may be the same panels, they don't have the same video processing. That makes a difference in the picture quality.