are curved tv's the biggest waste of money

thor

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

It either has to be your eyesight for this view of SD vs HD or some weird money saving placebo effect!

Perhaps you are right but I do have regular check ups at the opticians(the last being 6 months ago) and have always been assessed as having perfect vision.
My opinion is that HD was more of an unnecessary luxury. If you think not then let me pose this question:
Before HD did you think that what we really needed was an improvement on SD picture quality? Even when CRT screens got to 30 inches plus nobody was complaining that SD was inadequate until tv manufacturers started pushing HD(their latest gimmick at the time) onto the public.

Nilrem

thor wrote: »

Perhaps you are right but I do have regular check ups at the opticians(the last being 6 months ago) and have always been assessed as having perfect vision.
My opinion is that HD was more of an unnecessary luxury. If you think not then let me pose this question:
Before HD did you think that what we really needed was an improvement on SD picture quality? Even when CRT screens got to 30 inches plus nobody was complaining that SD was inadequate until tv manufacturers started pushing HD(their latest gimmick at the time) onto the public.

By that argument why did we bother going from 405 line to 625, or go from B&W to colour, and mono to stereo? (let alone stereo to 5.1)

Depending on what you're watching HD can make a lot of difference, especially if you're watching stuff that was originally shot on film or on HD and took advantage of that resolution.

I've seen some films a number of times in SD but spotted stuff I'd never noticed once I saw them in HD, it can be minor stuff such as jokes by the production staff*, or it can be things that are more important to the plot such as early clues as to the identity of a suspect in a mystery.
If you're a film fan the jump to HD was huge, as it meant you could actually see details that were visible in the cinema, on your home set! (a fairly good example is the opening of Blade Runner, where on the SD versions the windows on the tower were blurs that melted into each other, on the blu-ray they're actually individual windows).

At 30 inches most SD sets were really pushing the limits of what CRT technology could do in terms of geometry** (at 20" it was often a real problem with computer monitors***), and the limits of the resolution was starting to show up.
As LCD's (which are a huge improvement in power use, weight, and overall size), came in the issue of resolution limits started to show up even more due to the fact that LCD by it's nature is very sharp in pixel outlines and thus unlike CRT which handily blurred as there were no really defined pixels on the screen by default (something that "shadow mask" type grills tried to help with), as you got to bigger displays the pixel size had to increase (so blockiness got worse), or you had to increase the number of pixels.

The fact that the increase in pixel numbers on the TV meant it could then be used for computers is a nice, very handy bonus, as computer users had been using "HD" resolutions for years before it made it into TV's
Indeed many of the early HD TV's (especailly in the 20-24 inch range) were often using the interface boards and even panels from PC monitors with the addition of basic speakers and a TV tuner.

Much of the difference between what a HD set and an SD set can/does apart from the obvious pixel count, is something that a lot of people probably never really thought about, but those who are reasonably familiar with the technology, or were AV fans knew/know about (things like setting up TV's so that straight lines were straight, circles were round, and having to deal with the overscan/underscan issues all of which were inherent in CRT displays).

Basically what I'm saying is, that if you actually pay attention to the screen and have a good source, the HD is a huge step up for viewers
For a lot of people though it's just a display, which largely thanks to the fact that LCD's are actually easier to make large screens in, means that they're cheaper now than CRT's ever were

I'm aware that i'm mixing HD/SD and CRT/LCD in this post, but really the two subjects are really closely linked, in that LCD needs a higher resolution in terms of pixels to maintain a good quality of picture (even if the source is just SD, as large pin sharp pixels look bad), and you would never have go popular HD with just CRT due to the massive issues involved in precision CRT sets and the costs involved in HD CRT (partly because from memory the actual glass tube that housed the display and electron gun had to get bigger, and that involved a huge increase in costs as it got so much harder to make, and handle).

*Star Trek TNG for example had all sorts of jokes in their console text that can now be read by people with the HD versions.

**The electron gun and the magnets focusing it's been started to really show up minor discrepencies in the actual display.


***I had a 20" Sony Pro CRT monitor, and every few weeks had to reset the geometry on it as it would drift slightly over time/depending on what I suspect was partly the room temperature (probably affecting part of the circuit that aimed the beam very very slightly).

almillar

My opinion is that HD was more of an unnecessary luxury

Plenty of people would have 'TV' under that definition. And yes, HD did become 'necessary' because of the bigger screen sizes. Perhaps not 30" CRTs, but watching SD on a 40 inch TV can be deeply unpleasant in SD, especially on the channels that have their bandwidth squashed far too much. If you want to see what SD is still capable of, a well masterered DVD on a well set up system can still look 'great' if not 'sharp'.

meer53

I don't get the TV thing full stop.

If i didn't have kids, i'd quite happily live without one. Curved or flat.

almillar

What are all these luddites doing in the digital TV moneysaving forum?!

missile

almillar wrote: »

What are all these luddites doing in the digital TV moneysaving forum?!

Exiles from the flat earth forum?

Bri1

I have seen a few of these working in shops, the picture looks great, the curved thing does look a bit odd but you would probably get used to it, remember how the flat screens looked convex at first when you went from a CRT slight curved TV screen, but no way at those prices :-)

But here's the Rub, the price is absolutely ridiculous, when you can get a quality brand a 50 - 55" full HD tv for around £400, some of the features offered seem a little pointless, 4K where's the content to make this even higher price worthwhile, it's took an age for broadcast HD to arrive & is still limited.

I only tend to change stuff like a TV when it develops a problem as I see no advantage at present to chuck out my Samsung 50" Plasma TV which works just fine for me, I thought the overpriced 3D Tv's were a waste as well, I now try to see films in the cinema in 2d, as most of the 3D one's I have seen were very disappointing, so imagine the TV version would be even poorer

I will sit back, to see if the price drops to a sensible level & if they continue with the format before I would even consider one, early adopters must have deep pockets & a stern constitution for failed formats as there have been quite a few in the past

almillar

50 - 55" full HD tv for around £400

This sounds good - examples?
I agree on 4K - great picture, but I'll wait for the content. And I'll also get a better, cheaper screen then! But when 4K TVs are already down to a grand, it's going to get to the point where there's really not much of a premium to be paid for 4K over HD, so I think people will have these screens before they have much to put on them...

Bri1

almillar wrote: »

This sounds good - examples?
I agree on 4K - great picture, but I'll wait for the content. And I'll also get a better, cheaper screen then! But when 4K TVs are already down to a grand, it's going to get to the point where there's really not much of a premium to be paid for 4K over HD, so I think people will have these screens before they have much to put on them...

Last time I was in a Tesco superstore they had a Panasonic Full HD with freeview HD 50" for about £430 - 440, have seen Samsungs, Pansonics 51" & 55" around the £400 - 500, some no mark brands even cheaper as well quite frequently, but can't think of any more specific places as when your not in the market for one you just kind of look in passing & can't believe how cheap they have got

Tropez

thor wrote: »

Before HD did you think that what we really needed was an improvement on SD picture quality? Even when CRT screens got to 30 inches plus nobody was complaining that SD was inadequate until tv manufacturers started pushing HD(their latest gimmick at the time) onto the public.

I felt that we needed larger screens and as someone else pointed out as screen sizes increased, so too did the need for HD. On my 40" TV, standard definition looks crummy - it's like watching a worn out VHS from 1989 at times. I don't tend to mind too much as I also watch a lot of low-budget films made in the 60s, 70s and 80s and poor quality video is par for the course with most of these.

Is HD a luxury? Possibly but the same could be argued for most improvements. As someone who plays video games and has followed the evolution of video-game graphics I can say that graphics don't make a game but the better graphics become the more immersive the experience in many cases.

And as someone who follows ice hockey I will say the moment you've seen ice hockey in HD going back to SD is a real problem. That is a sport that massively benefits from HD, so much so that I subscribe to NHL GameCenter Live and watch the oft-glitchy streams of games, rather than pay for Premier Sports.