are curved tv's the biggest waste of money

[Deleted User]

I think we've rather wandered off topic by going on to discuss 4K televisions and broadcasts which will definitely go on to be the next big improvement in picture quality.
However, returning to curved TVs, I think they are somewhat limited in normal living rooms where not everyone can sit directly in front of the screen. For this reason, I doubt we'll be seeing supermarket cheapies using this design any time soon, if at all.

bsms1147

Try putting one flat on a wall.

[Deleted User]

bsms1147 wrote: »

Try putting one flat on a wall.

Since they are only (slightly) curved at the edges, this isn't really a problem.

It's the viewing angles which are limited and which are the biggest disadvantage to these sets.

Kurtis_Blue

bsms1147 wrote: »

Try putting one flat on a wall.

We have hung a few, all Samsungs, they are curved over the whole surface area and have come with a kit to be used with standard vesa brackets.

Other brands, LG especially possibly others, can require the purchasing of pretty expensive specialist brackets.

Personally I don't think they look right. Can also cast quite deep shadows depending on lighting source.

almillar

It's the viewing angles which are limited and which are the biggest disadvantage to these sets.

Ha! The marketing people, trying to justify the product, will try to tell you that the viewing angles are better! A product looking for a market...

b33r

I think they are great, but then, I do live in a lighthouse.

Chrysalis

brewerdave wrote: »

Saw a 55" Samsung curved screen OLED set last weekend - the picture was outstanding...................but so was the price tag:eek:

That good picture would be due to OLED not the curve, shame there isnt any flatscreen OLED's.

Chrysalis

almillar wrote: »

Disagree on 4K, pending getting it broadcast to us. We've got screens for under £2,000, record it on a £600 smartphone, but transmission is holding us back, just like with HD. The picture is noticeably better than HD, but then I've had arguments with people on here telling me they couldn't tell the difference between SD and HD.
Free eye tests people!

Well is things to consider.

uncompressed SD probably will look very close to HD.

The reason its easy to tell the difference is mainly down to compression and bitrate's, now days SD channels are sent at low quality to encourage people to pay for HD sub's.

Also LCD screens have some issues when displaying non native resolutions so viewing 720p on a 1080p tv e.g. would look worse than viewing 720p on a 720p tv as the latter its native resolution.

Personally I cannot tell the difference between 720p, and 108p on netflix. Also in games I see little difference between 1080p and 720p, it doesnt mean I need glasses.

almillar

uncompressed SD probably will look very close to HD.

Ridiculous. You meant to say uncompressed SD vs compressed HD, but you didn't, so it's not a fair comparison. Take compression out of it, that's a different matter. 1080 lines of information, like for like, is better than 576. Fact. 4K lines of information is better than 1080. Fact!

Having got that out of the way, yes, plenty of channels are compressed more than others. If you want to see the best of SD, watch a DVD. But then you must compare it to a Blu-Ray, not the shopping channel on Sky!
I agree that in normal TV watching it might be difficult to tell the difference between 720 and 1080, and it'll depend on the type of programme, but in gaming I can tell the difference - granted I'm close to a big screen.

gfplux

You will know they are a waste of time and money or not by how many are on display in the shops in 12 months time.
We now know definitely that 3D televisions were a waste of time and money by how few if any are on display today.