Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The TV Thread: More for Less

1568101134

Posts

  • DeicistDeicist Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    Help me TV thread....

    I'm looking to blow £350 on a telly. I'll be using it mostly as a PC monitor, but it will also be my main TV (I just don't really watch TV that much).

    So far I've seen the following:

    http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/toshiba-40bv701-40-full-hd-lcd-tv-10490819-pdt.html
    Toshiba 40BV701

    http://direct.tesco.com/q/R.212-6111.aspx
    Samsung LE40D503

    http://www.comet.co.uk/p/LCD-TVs/buy-JVC-LT-42TG30J-LCD-TV/773700
    JVC LT-42TG30J

    I'm veering toward the Toshiba, since it has more inputs / outputs which is important because I won't be able to upgrade my (non HDMI) AV receiver at the moment, so I'll have to route my inputs direct into the telly then take an optical audio from the telly to the receiver.

    Anyway, Any other deals (in the UK) anyone is aware of that is better than these? Any comments on any of these?

    edit: Just found this on amazon as well to add to the list:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Toshiba-40BV801B-40-inch-Full-HD-Freeview/dp/tech-data/B005ITVKPC/ref=de_a_smtd

    edit the second:

    there's also this on amazon:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Manta-LCD4214-42-inch-Widescreen-Freeview/dp/tech-data/B006OJBSKC/ref=de_a_smtd

    a 42 inch, 1080p passive 3D set for £349. Which seems ridiculously cheap. I'm tempted to take a gamble, but I'm guessing shipping it back if it's rubbish is going to cost me a fortune.


    Deicist on
  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Clipse wrote:
    What is the current thinking on high end plasmas versus local dimming LED-backlit LCDs in terms of (mostly) dark room viewing? Specifically, is there much of a consensus as to which has better image quality between Samsung's 7900 or 8000 series LED TVs and Panasonic's GT30 or VT30 plasmas?

    From what I've read, the only TV (on any tech) that beats the VT30 on purely IQ terms is the Sharp Elite, which costs over 2x as much. Also, those Samsungs are not true "local-dimming" sets - they are edge-lit LEDs that can selectively turn off part of the lighting to attempt to simulate the effect of a full-array local dimming set such as the Sony HX929 (which is supposed to be better than the Sammys, but not as good as the VT30) or Sharp Elite.

    a5ehren on
  • BlendtecBlendtec PittsburghRegistered User regular
    a5ehren wrote:
    Clipse wrote:
    What is the current thinking on high end plasmas versus local dimming LED-backlit LCDs in terms of (mostly) dark room viewing? Specifically, is there much of a consensus as to which has better image quality between Samsung's 7900 or 8000 series LED TVs and Panasonic's GT30 or VT30 plasmas?

    From what I've read, the only TV (on any tech) that beats the VT30 on purely IQ terms is the Sharp Elite, which costs over 2x as much. Also, those Samsungs are not true "local-dimming" sets - they are edge-lit LEDs that can selectively turn off part of the lighting to attempt to simulate the effect of a full-array local dimming set such as the Sony HX929 (which is supposed to be better than the Sammys, but not as good as the VT30) or Sharp Elite.

    My TCL does the dimming thing too, cause it's just a rebranded Samsung. I can't say I like it though, I turned it off.

    I also go by Twinkie in some games. Add me on Steam!
    steam_sig.png
  • ClipseClipse Registered User regular
    a5ehren wrote:
    Clipse wrote:
    What is the current thinking on high end plasmas versus local dimming LED-backlit LCDs in terms of (mostly) dark room viewing? Specifically, is there much of a consensus as to which has better image quality between Samsung's 7900 or 8000 series LED TVs and Panasonic's GT30 or VT30 plasmas?

    From what I've read, the only TV (on any tech) that beats the VT30 on purely IQ terms is the Sharp Elite, which costs over 2x as much. Also, those Samsungs are not true "local-dimming" sets - they are edge-lit LEDs that can selectively turn off part of the lighting to attempt to simulate the effect of a full-array local dimming set such as the Sony HX929 (which is supposed to be better than the Sammys, but not as good as the VT30) or Sharp Elite.

    Yeah, I came across a few reviews after making that post that clarified the 'fake' local dimming Samsung is using. That's disappointing, I hadn't been paying much attention to TVs for a generation or two and thought LCDs had made some major strides when I first saw that. Definitely leaning towards a Panasonic plasma now; how do the GT30 and VT30 stack up? I know the GT30 only supports real 24p in 48hz (versus 96hz on the VT30), which seems like a very annoying step backwards to me, but might be permissible for the price difference if the sets are otherwise similar. I gather it also lacks the THX presets of the VT30, but I almost certainly won't be using the presets anyways.

  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    Clipse wrote:
    a5ehren wrote:
    Clipse wrote:
    What is the current thinking on high end plasmas versus local dimming LED-backlit LCDs in terms of (mostly) dark room viewing? Specifically, is there much of a consensus as to which has better image quality between Samsung's 7900 or 8000 series LED TVs and Panasonic's GT30 or VT30 plasmas?

    From what I've read, the only TV (on any tech) that beats the VT30 on purely IQ terms is the Sharp Elite, which costs over 2x as much. Also, those Samsungs are not true "local-dimming" sets - they are edge-lit LEDs that can selectively turn off part of the lighting to attempt to simulate the effect of a full-array local dimming set such as the Sony HX929 (which is supposed to be better than the Sammys, but not as good as the VT30) or Sharp Elite.

    Yeah, I came across a few reviews after making that post that clarified the 'fake' local dimming Samsung is using. That's disappointing, I hadn't been paying much attention to TVs for a generation or two and thought LCDs had made some major strides when I first saw that. Definitely leaning towards a Panasonic plasma now; how do the GT30 and VT30 stack up? I know the GT30 only supports real 24p in 48hz (versus 96hz on the VT30), which seems like a very annoying step backwards to me, but might be permissible for the price difference if the sets are otherwise similar. I gather it also lacks the THX presets of the VT30, but I almost certainly won't be using the presets anyways.

    The GT30 also has THX presets (though their accuracy has been debated). If 24p is important to you, then the 48Hz mode on the GT would probably be a dealbreaker. If you really care about that feature, however, the Samsung PNxxD7000 offers a 96Hz mode (and arguably better IQ to boot) for GT-level pricing.

  • ClipseClipse Registered User regular
    a5ehren wrote:
    Clipse wrote:
    a5ehren wrote:
    Clipse wrote:
    What is the current thinking on high end plasmas versus local dimming LED-backlit LCDs in terms of (mostly) dark room viewing? Specifically, is there much of a consensus as to which has better image quality between Samsung's 7900 or 8000 series LED TVs and Panasonic's GT30 or VT30 plasmas?

    From what I've read, the only TV (on any tech) that beats the VT30 on purely IQ terms is the Sharp Elite, which costs over 2x as much. Also, those Samsungs are not true "local-dimming" sets - they are edge-lit LEDs that can selectively turn off part of the lighting to attempt to simulate the effect of a full-array local dimming set such as the Sony HX929 (which is supposed to be better than the Sammys, but not as good as the VT30) or Sharp Elite.

    Yeah, I came across a few reviews after making that post that clarified the 'fake' local dimming Samsung is using. That's disappointing, I hadn't been paying much attention to TVs for a generation or two and thought LCDs had made some major strides when I first saw that. Definitely leaning towards a Panasonic plasma now; how do the GT30 and VT30 stack up? I know the GT30 only supports real 24p in 48hz (versus 96hz on the VT30), which seems like a very annoying step backwards to me, but might be permissible for the price difference if the sets are otherwise similar. I gather it also lacks the THX presets of the VT30, but I almost certainly won't be using the presets anyways.

    The GT30 also has THX presets (though their accuracy has been debated). If 24p is important to you, then the 48Hz mode on the GT would probably be a dealbreaker. If you really care about that feature, however, the Samsung PNxxD7000 offers a 96Hz mode (and arguably better IQ to boot) for GT-level pricing.

    I kind of ignored Samsung's current plasma offerings because they all lose black level performance when running in the 96hz mode. At any rate, I think I'm just going to go all in and get the VT30. Thanks for the advice.

  • The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    So I am now the proud owner of a 50'' LG plasma. Just been playing around with it for the past few days, but oh man am I in love with it

    I've got some concerns about burn in though. Now I've read all around about how burn in mostly isn't a problem anymore. And I know the difference between burn in and image retention. But god damn does this thing have image retention. Like 3 seconds of the "No signal" message is enough to leave a faint afterimage. I've been babying the thing so far, and even with some light to medium gaming, even though the hud may linger on the screen, it always washes away. Still, I'm a bit nervous about the whole thing, and all this IR stuff has made me notice one thing: There are a fuckton of stupid static station logos all over the place. Not to mention that nearly every single SD channel displays in black bars, which is apparently bad as well.

    So this 100 hour warm up period that every plasma site seems to mention, is it really important to follow? I'm obviously not going to do something stupid like leave a logo up for a week straight or anything like that. But still, it's all a little nerve wracking. Like, I have this awesome TV that I want to use the hell out of, but I'm afraid to go near the thing, lest I do something wrong and screw it up.

    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
    PSN: TheWolfman64 3DS/Pokemon Y: 0774-4614-4065 (Trainer name Christopher)
  • ParagonParagon Registered User regular
    My mom wanted to buy a TV (she wanted an over 55" TV and not a projector), so I recommended Samsung's 59" PN59D550

    More specifically, it's the PS59D555XXE version here in Norway, if that matters. I'm no expert on TVs but I've read reviews and most seem to agree that it is a good buy for the price.

    This forum chart mentions that 550 doesn't have Smart TV but sites that sell the 555XXE version says that version does have that...I guess.

    Any thoughts?

    Bagginses wrote: »
    Really, -J-'s argument against empiricism comes down to "sure, it might work in practice, but it still doesn't work in theory," which I suppose makes rationalists the philosophical version of paultards and goldbugs.
  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    Paragon wrote:
    My mom wanted to buy a TV (she wanted an over 55" TV and not a projector), so I recommended Samsung's 59" PN59D550

    More specifically, it's the PS59D555XXE version here in Norway, if that matters. I'm no expert on TVs but I've read reviews and most seem to agree that it is a good buy for the price.

    This forum chart mentions that 550 doesn't have Smart TV but sites that sell the 555XXE version says that version does have that...I guess.

    Any thoughts?

    That's supposed to be a pretty good entry-level plasma. I'd say she probably won't miss the SmartTV features if they aren't there, so consider it a nice bonus if it is :)

  • ParagonParagon Registered User regular
    a5ehren wrote:
    That's supposed to be a pretty good entry-level plasma. I'd say she probably won't miss the SmartTV features if they aren't there, so consider it a nice bonus if it is :)

    Aight. I've spent some time searching around and it seems kind of inconsistent what I find: some places list PS59D555C1KXXE, some places omit the C1K, and then there's Samsung's own site which apparently only lists a PS59D555C1K model. In the "3D conversion" part of the site they say that the 3D conversion is part of Samsung's Smart TV function, or something.

    In any case, this whole thing reminds me of the sad fact that there's not a single company in the world, apparently, with a sensible model naming scheme.

    Bagginses wrote: »
    Really, -J-'s argument against empiricism comes down to "sure, it might work in practice, but it still doesn't work in theory," which I suppose makes rationalists the philosophical version of paultards and goldbugs.
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    Paragon wrote:
    a5ehren wrote:
    That's supposed to be a pretty good entry-level plasma. I'd say she probably won't miss the SmartTV features if they aren't there, so consider it a nice bonus if it is :)

    Aight. I've spent some time searching around and it seems kind of inconsistent what I find: some places list PS59D555C1KXXE, some places omit the C1K, and then there's Samsung's own site which apparently only lists a PS59D555C1K model. In the "3D conversion" part of the site they say that the 3D conversion is part of Samsung's Smart TV function, or something.

    In any case, this whole thing reminds me of the sad fact that there's not a single company in the world, apparently, with a sensible model naming scheme.

    Stores often have their own 'brand' of every model so that they can't be forced to price match.

    "Our 60inch Viera GT has the letter L at the end of its model number. Sorry, can't match Frys price on that!"

  • RakaiRakai Registered User regular
    I'm in the market for a 40-46" 3DTV for around $1000. I can go pay more if needed. The TV will be hooked up to my computer as well so I'm wondering what issues would be faced getting that to work and if there are recommendations that anyone has.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]XBL: Rakayn | PS3: Rakayn | Steam ID
  • BlendtecBlendtec PittsburghRegistered User regular
    Rakai wrote:
    I'm in the market for a 40-46" 3DTV for around $1000. I can go pay more if needed. The TV will be hooked up to my computer as well so I'm wondering what issues would be faced getting that to work and if there are recommendations that anyone has.

    Might be worth it to wait with the CES going on right now. See if anything new coming out looks good, and even if it doesn't, new stuff means the old stuff will drop in price.

    I also go by Twinkie in some games. Add me on Steam!
    steam_sig.png
  • RakaiRakai Registered User regular
    Blendtec wrote:
    Rakai wrote:
    I'm in the market for a 40-46" 3DTV for around $1000. I can go pay more if needed. The TV will be hooked up to my computer as well so I'm wondering what issues would be faced getting that to work and if there are recommendations that anyone has.

    Might be worth it to wait with the CES going on right now. See if anything new coming out looks good, and even if it doesn't, new stuff means the old stuff will drop in price.

    A lot of what's been mentioned so far is basically smart TV's (which I don't need since it will be hooked up to a computer) and demoing OLED tech which won't hit mass market prices for another 3-4 years. Pricing wise TV's are at a low point already with many TV companies hurting over current prices (see Sony) and so I don't expect them to drop much further. They'll probably push the smart TV stuff and try to raise prices a bit.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]XBL: Rakayn | PS3: Rakayn | Steam ID
  • BlendtecBlendtec PittsburghRegistered User regular
    Rakai wrote:
    Blendtec wrote:
    Rakai wrote:
    I'm in the market for a 40-46" 3DTV for around $1000. I can go pay more if needed. The TV will be hooked up to my computer as well so I'm wondering what issues would be faced getting that to work and if there are recommendations that anyone has.

    Might be worth it to wait with the CES going on right now. See if anything new coming out looks good, and even if it doesn't, new stuff means the old stuff will drop in price.

    A lot of what's been mentioned so far is basically smart TV's (which I don't need since it will be hooked up to a computer) and demoing OLED tech which won't hit mass market prices for another 3-4 years. Pricing wise TV's are at a low point already with many TV companies hurting over current prices (see Sony) and so I don't expect them to drop much further. They'll probably push the smart TV stuff and try to raise prices a bit.

    Ah. I don't actually know much about the 3DTV aside from the fact that wearing the glasses for long periods of time would really bug me. Plus you're screwed if you have more people wanting to watch than you have glasses. That said, the few I've seen are pretty cool, no idea if they'll actually stick around or they're just a fad.

    42 inch 3D Vizio with internet built in. Only $800, plus Vizio makes a decent set.

    I also go by Twinkie in some games. Add me on Steam!
    steam_sig.png
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    Blendtec wrote:
    Rakai wrote:
    Blendtec wrote:
    Rakai wrote:
    I'm in the market for a 40-46" 3DTV for around $1000. I can go pay more if needed. The TV will be hooked up to my computer as well so I'm wondering what issues would be faced getting that to work and if there are recommendations that anyone has.

    Might be worth it to wait with the CES going on right now. See if anything new coming out looks good, and even if it doesn't, new stuff means the old stuff will drop in price.

    A lot of what's been mentioned so far is basically smart TV's (which I don't need since it will be hooked up to a computer) and demoing OLED tech which won't hit mass market prices for another 3-4 years. Pricing wise TV's are at a low point already with many TV companies hurting over current prices (see Sony) and so I don't expect them to drop much further. They'll probably push the smart TV stuff and try to raise prices a bit.

    Ah. I don't actually know much about the 3DTV aside from the fact that wearing the glasses for long periods of time would really bug me. Plus you're screwed if you have more people wanting to watch than you have glasses. That said, the few I've seen are pretty cool, no idea if they'll actually stick around or they're just a fad.

    42 inch 3D Vizio with internet built in. Only $800, plus Vizio makes a decent set.

    I mean you can turn the 3D off.

    So, you aren't really screwed if you have more people than glasses

  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt Damn you, eidetic memory! Registered User regular
    Unless they all want to watch it in 3-D
    <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" />

    Origin ID: Null_Cypher
    Thomas-Vail.png
  • BlendtecBlendtec PittsburghRegistered User regular
    Unless they all want to watch it in 3-D
    <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" />

    Yeah, that's my big issue with it. Suddenly your $800+ TV is no different than my $200 one. Depending on how often you have guests and use the TV with the glasses it would certainly be worth it and I could see the appeal, but it just doesn't seem like my kinda thing yet.

    I also go by Twinkie in some games. Add me on Steam!
    steam_sig.png
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Blendtec wrote:
    Unless they all want to watch it in 3-D
    <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" />

    Yeah, that's my big issue with it. Suddenly your $800+ TV is no different than my $200 one. Depending on how often you have guests and use the TV with the glasses it would certainly be worth it and I could see the appeal, but it just doesn't seem like my kinda thing yet.

    If you are buying a new TV the chances that it has 3D is, like, 100%

    The only reason a non-3D set would be cheaper is that a non-3D set would be older.

    There is no $200 TV that would come anywhere near meeting a $800+ dollar quality set, regardless of 3D or not.

    Pretty sure this is you inventing an issue with TVs.

    Burtletoy on
  • BlendtecBlendtec PittsburghRegistered User regular
    edited January 2012
    I feel like they still make and sell TVs without 3D and that a lot of price difference is just paying for a name brand, 42in 1080p is 42in 1080p unless you buy a really crappy set with issues. Regardless, I got off topic complaining about my own personal dislike of 3D TV. Hopefully someone with actual knowledge about them can help Rakai out.

    Blendtec on
    I also go by Twinkie in some games. Add me on Steam!
    steam_sig.png
  • Akilae729Akilae729 Registered User
    In a half hour I'm driving out to buy this television. HELP!

    A fry's in my area as a LG 50PK550 for $599

    It is open box however.....

    They said that the warranty and everything is the same, but the sales person on the phone said that I DON'T want to buy an open box television because, "Someone returned it for some reason"

    Does this person know what they are talking about? If I go to the store and the TV looks good I think I'm gonna buy it.

    They also have the LG 50PV450 for $699.

    signaturebighe7.jpg
  • RakaiRakai Registered User regular
    Akilae729 wrote:
    In a half hour I'm driving out to buy this television. HELP!

    A fry's in my area as a LG 50PK550 for $599

    It is open box however.....

    They said that the warranty and everything is the same, but the sales person on the phone said that I DON'T want to buy an open box television because, "Someone returned it for some reason"

    Does this person know what they are talking about? If I go to the store and the TV looks good I think I'm gonna buy it.

    They also have the LG 50PV450 for $699.

    I don't have any experience with televisions, but my motherboard was an open box from fry's and it clearly was never even installed (and has been working without issue for 4 years) so you never know. Someone could have taken it home and simply found that it was the wrong size.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]XBL: Rakayn | PS3: Rakayn | Steam ID
  • Lord_SnotLord_Snot Registered User regular
    I honestly think that 3D is a gimmick, I can't see it lasting. Apparently there was almost no 3D coverage at CES this year, with more focus on hyper-HD or something, basically HD but at a higher resolution than 1080P.

  • HandgimpHandgimp Registered User regular
    Yeah, they're trying to push 4k resolutions now to prop tv prices up. I don't really see that working - getting content production/distribution to 1080p was hard enough, and really is still a work in progress.

  • RakaiRakai Registered User regular
    That 4k TV LG showed was a passive 3D tv with a push of full HD resolution with 3D (something passive currently lacks) and all the OLED tvs shown were 3D as well. Toshiba showed off a 4k glasses free 3DTV. 3D isn't a new feature so it isn't going to grab headlines, but it was featured in every tv shown.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]XBL: Rakayn | PS3: Rakayn | Steam ID
  • BlendtecBlendtec PittsburghRegistered User regular
    Handgimp wrote:
    Yeah, they're trying to push 4k resolutions now to prop tv prices up. I don't really see that working - getting content production/distribution to 1080p was hard enough, and really is still a work in progress.

    It bothers me entirely too much that Comcast only broadcasts their HD cable in 1080i. The PS3's menus are in 1080p, most of the games still seem to be in 720p, at least according to our TV. It'd be nice to see the industry work on that stuff first.

    I also go by Twinkie in some games. Add me on Steam!
    steam_sig.png
  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Blendtec wrote:
    Handgimp wrote:
    Yeah, they're trying to push 4k resolutions now to prop tv prices up. I don't really see that working - getting content production/distribution to 1080p was hard enough, and really is still a work in progress.

    It bothers me entirely too much that Comcast only broadcasts their HD cable in 1080i. The PS3's menus are in 1080p, most of the games still seem to be in 720p, at least according to our TV. It'd be nice to see the industry work on that stuff first.

    There's a bandwidth problem. Cable operators would have to replace every single STB they have with ones that can decode MPEG-4 streams in order to broadcast 1080p content. We would also have to replace all of those digital converter boxes (which are basically MPEG-2 decoders) for OTA broadcasts.

    Stepping to 4K (end of this decade) will require a similar step, but with an encoder that hasn't been written yet.

    8K (some time next decade) will require a re-architecting of all non-fiber broadband networks, so that will be fun.

    a5ehren on
  • chrishallett83chrishallett83 Hi! Registered User regular
    a5ehren wrote:
    Blendtec wrote:
    Handgimp wrote:
    Yeah, they're trying to push 4k resolutions now to prop tv prices up. I don't really see that working - getting content production/distribution to 1080p was hard enough, and really is still a work in progress.

    It bothers me entirely too much that Comcast only broadcasts their HD cable in 1080i. The PS3's menus are in 1080p, most of the games still seem to be in 720p, at least according to our TV. It'd be nice to see the industry work on that stuff first.

    There's a bandwidth problem. Cable operators would have to replace every single STB they have with ones that can decode MPEG-4 streams in order to broadcast 1080p content. We would also have to replace all of those digital converter boxes (which are basically MPEG-2 decoders) for OTA broadcasts.

    Stepping to 4K (end of this decade) will require a similar step, but with an encoder that hasn't been written yet.

    8K (some time next decade) will require a re-architecting of all non-fiber broadband networks, so that will be fun.

    Why go to 8K? There's absolutely no point. 4K is good for screen sizes up to what? 3 metres?

    terriblepostsigpic.jpg
    AusPAX tickets get [X] Accomodation get [X] Plane tickets get [X] Goodie giftbags made [ ]
  • DjeetDjeet Registered User regular
    4K is only here because it's standard in film for digital projection. Presumably the film industry will push it out to 8K and that will be the driving factor for getting consumer displays at that res.

  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2012
    a5ehren wrote:
    Blendtec wrote:
    Handgimp wrote:
    Yeah, they're trying to push 4k resolutions now to prop tv prices up. I don't really see that working - getting content production/distribution to 1080p was hard enough, and really is still a work in progress.

    It bothers me entirely too much that Comcast only broadcasts their HD cable in 1080i. The PS3's menus are in 1080p, most of the games still seem to be in 720p, at least according to our TV. It'd be nice to see the industry work on that stuff first.

    There's a bandwidth problem. Cable operators would have to replace every single STB they have with ones that can decode MPEG-4 streams in order to broadcast 1080p content. We would also have to replace all of those digital converter boxes (which are basically MPEG-2 decoders) for OTA broadcasts.

    Stepping to 4K (end of this decade) will require a similar step, but with an encoder that hasn't been written yet.

    8K (some time next decade) will require a re-architecting of all non-fiber broadband networks, so that will be fun.

    Why go to 8K? There's absolutely no point. 4K is good for screen sizes up to what? 3 metres?

    8K will be good for wall-sized displays. It sounds crazy now, but by the end of the 2020s it won't be unheard of.

    It's also a good stepping stone towards getting the infrastructure in place (aka advanced fiber to the home) for spatial 3D broadcasts (think holo-projectors), which require even more bandwidth.

    a5ehren on
  • jimb213jimb213 Registered User regular
    Djeet wrote:
    4K is only here because it's standard in film for digital projection. Presumably the film industry will push it out to 8K and that will be the driving factor for getting consumer displays at that res.

    I dunno. 1080p is a great resolution for distribution, and if your video capture is truly 1080 lines of resolution then I think that's enough the vast majority of the time. DSLRs that the indies and low end folks (including me!) have been going gaga over the last few years actually only resolve something like 500 or 600 lines and record that to a crappy highly-compressed 1080p codec, and the pictures they produce can still be gorgeous. The Arri Alexa, one of the two de facto standards for digital cinema and TV production (the other being RED), "only" does 1080p (but a very good 1080p), and lots of amazing looking TV shows and theatrical releases have been and are being shot on it (Hugo, Game of Thrones, Drive, tons of TV dramas). In my (admittedly lower-end) professional opinion, 4k distribution is overkill for everything except for theatrical releases. And even then, I think it's debatable... I shot a promo video last year that played at one of the Alamo Drafthouse theaters here in Austin on my DSLR, and it looked great up on the enormous screen...

    At home, even on a monstrous 60" or bigger TV, 4k just won't make enough of a difference for the public to upgrade again any time soon. Increasing resolution beyond 1080p has very quickly diminishing returns.

  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    jimb213 wrote:
    Djeet wrote:
    4K is only here because it's standard in film for digital projection. Presumably the film industry will push it out to 8K and that will be the driving factor for getting consumer displays at that res.

    I dunno. 1080p is a great resolution for distribution, and if your video capture is truly 1080 lines of resolution then I think that's enough the vast majority of the time. DSLRs that the indies and low end folks (including me!) have been going gaga over the last few years actually only resolve something like 500 or 600 lines and record that to a crappy highly-compressed 1080p codec, and the pictures they produce can still be gorgeous. The Arri Alexa, one of the two de facto standards for digital cinema and TV production (the other being RED), "only" does 1080p (but a very good 1080p), and lots of amazing looking TV shows and theatrical releases have been and are being shot on it (Hugo, Game of Thrones, Drive, tons of TV dramas). In my (admittedly lower-end) professional opinion, 4k distribution is overkill for everything except for theatrical releases. And even then, I think it's debatable... I shot a promo video last year that played at one of the Alamo Drafthouse theaters here in Austin on my DSLR, and it looked great up on the enormous screen...

    At home, even on a monstrous 60" or bigger TV, 4k just won't make enough of a difference for the public to upgrade again any time soon. Increasing resolution beyond 1080p has very quickly diminishing returns.

    Well, part of the problem is that no TV is broadcast in 1080p at the moment and the 720p and 1080i stuff has really terrible bitrates (12-14 Mbps MPEG-2 is the most common - the satellite companies use 8 Mbps MPEG-4, which is why they have better PQ). If current TV broadcasts were Blu-Ray quality (~40 Mbps MPEG-4) then I would agree, but stuff like 4K and 3D will also push providers to increase bandwidth and hopefully provide higher quality on current HD content.

  • DjeetDjeet Registered User regular
    I don't mean to indicate that we need (or even would necessarily perceive PQ improvements with) 4K, just that manufacturer desire to be able to command more money for sets plus a genuine (if small) demand for 4K consumption will likely cause some consumer availability of 4K tech. And if film industry moves to 8K (notwithstanding the quadrupling of processing power/time needed) or whatever the cycle would continue. I know guys who'd gladly drop 10K to get a 4K set and then be clamoring for 4K content (movies in their original theatrically released format) though these guys are kinda nuts. I kinda doubt the average consumer is ready for another format upgrade given that BD's being mainstream is a pretty recent development.

    Personally I'm less interested in a 4K big screen tv than a 10" tablet with Retina-level pixel density (that may be a bit extreme).

  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    I think 300+dpi tablet screens are dumb personally, but I would love a 4K TV :P

  • IncindiumIncindium Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Edit... was wrong about that. nm

    Incindium on
    steam_sig.png
    Diablo 3 Profile
    Nintendo ID: Incindium
    Hex TCG: Incindium
  • Professor SnugglesworthProfessor Snugglesworth Bullied BatRegistered User regular
    You've probably seen me post here a few times inquiring about a 3D TV. With the whole 3D fad seemingly vanishing, those days are behind me.

    However, it looks like I might be in need of a new TV real soon. My Samsung TV which I've had since 2006 started emitting a weird cracking noise from its speakers, mainly whenever someone in the center is speaking. It's kind of like that effect old TVs have when it can't handle the volume, except in my case it occurs even at low volumes.

    This doesn't seem to happen with headphones equipped or when using the home theater, so it seems to be a problem with the TV itself. I'm going to inquire Samsung customer support about it, but I have a feeling they're going to charge a ridiculous amount just to fix it.

    So I think instead it's best if I go with my earlier plans and upgrade to an LED from Best Buy, so I don't have to pay for it all at once.

    I could really use your suggestions on affordable but highly acclaimed sets. I don't require any of that internet stuff since I hook up my PC to my TV anyway, but I'm all about picture quality, so I don't want to cut corners too much.

  • Professor SnugglesworthProfessor Snugglesworth Bullied BatRegistered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Thoughts? http://www.hhgregg.com/mitsubishi-73-3d-1080p-120hz-dlp-hdtv/item/WD73640

    That's a pretty crazy value for a huge TV. There's an HG Gregg right next to my Best Buy, so I plan to swing by tomorrow and take a look.

    Professor Snugglesworth on
  • IncindiumIncindium Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Those DLP's aren't as bright as an LCD... but they sure offer a massive bang for your buck.. Also and you'll have to replace the bulb on them every 2-3 years. I've got a 65" Mitsubishi that I've had for a bit over 3 years... Still on the original bulb and really need to replace it as it has dimmed a lot. If you do a lot of daytime watching or are putting in a bright room I'd recommend going LCD. But if you just want the most size for the dollar you can't beat the DLP Mitsubishi's.

    Incindium on
    steam_sig.png
    Diablo 3 Profile
    Nintendo ID: Incindium
    Hex TCG: Incindium
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    DLP's are cheap, but that is still a pretty good deal.

    You can regularily find the 60" for $1000 on slickdeals.net

    But I don't know if I've ever actually seen a DLP in person.

  • BlendtecBlendtec PittsburghRegistered User regular
    My parents and a friend of mine both got the same big DLP a few years back. Both ended up having to replace the bulbs at the same time too. Great picture quality though, and certainly huge. Can't think of the brand off hand, but we got someone to come out and replace the bulb for free even.

    I also go by Twinkie in some games. Add me on Steam!
    steam_sig.png
1568101134
Sign In or Register to comment.