are curved tv's the biggest waste of money

prowla

Nope - I don't get the curved screen thing.

Kurtis_Blue

gfplux wrote: »

We now know definitely that 3D televisions were a waste of time and money by how few if any are on display today.

If any? Well over half of TVs on sale are 3D ready everywhere I look.

Nilrem

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

If any? Well over half of TVs on sale are 3D ready everywhere I look.

Aye, making a TV 3d is something that is pretty much a default (as for at least the most common format it basically just requires the screen be capable of a certain frame rate).
It's not pushed as much, and I suspect many 3d capable screens don't come with the goggles now*, so it's not overly obvious.

IIRC at one of the big Japanese tech shows a couple of years back virtually no TV's on display made a big thing about being 3D, but instead promoted their "green" features, with the 3d abilities being relegated to the general features list (along with things like "3hdmi ports, 1080p).


*Which is fairly sensible as the goggles come in different sizes from memory.

esuhl

If curved TVs are a such a good idea... especially on large screens... Are cinemas going to be converted to use curved screens any time soon...?

Kurtis_Blue

esuhl wrote: »

If curved TVs are a such a good idea... especially on large screens... Are cinemas going to be converted to use curved screens any time soon...?

Yes, but only the best ones.

https://www.imax.com/

Nilrem

esuhl wrote: »

If curved TVs are a such a good idea... especially on large screens... Are cinemas going to be converted to use curved screens any time soon...?

One very good reason most cinema's don't is that a curved screen suitable for the audience in most cinemas needs a lot more room than a flat one (given it has to be able to provide a good picture for something like 20-30 seats wide).

It would also need new lenses and possibly a new projector for the cinema to ensure the picture being thrown onto the screen was kept in focus.

But the big one is probably the cost/space of the curved screen in the cinema, as it would take up a lot of space compared to the average size of most multiscreen cinema rooms.

missile

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

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.

I disagree. The whole screen is curved - not just the edges. The viewing angle is actually wider than an equivalent flat screen.
Is it worth the money? ...... that is not really the question, can you afford it? Is it money saving? ........ no way!


Whatever, I am very happy with my curved 4K TV.

roddydogs

How was my 3D TV a "Waste of money" the 3D was an "Extra" along with "Smart features" so what if I dont use it, it didnt cost me anything

thor

Well I won't be getting a 4k screen until it has become the standard. I can barely tell the difference between SD and HD but people tell me that HD is superior so I do accept that and I'm fairly sure the same thing will happen when it comes to HD and 4K comparisons.
My reason for not falling for 4K is that I am happy viewing at SD quality and see no need for anything better if it costs more.
In my lifetime the new television technologies I value are the switch from black and white to colour, remote controls, teletext, flat screens and smart tvs. I would have included 3d but there does not appear to be enough content being developed for it sadly. In other words increasing resolution comes a long way down my list.

forgotmyname

Its funny when you visit people after they have bought some super swish HD TV and marvel at the picture quality.
No matter how much you point out that they are watching SD TV through the antenna or only have an SD sky box they wont have it.

Show them the difference between a good SD clip and an HD and they either carry on denying it or think they paid all that extra for very little change.