Current TVs/technologies?

[Tyro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingB I only replaced my CRT set because they are too bulky (as per DW).

Not to be confused with the fellow who replaced his DW because she was too bulky (as per TV)... (rimshot).

[bUU]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazarus I just went to a neighbors house to help them hook up a tv to the cable box. They did not know what HDMI was. Just viewing TV is getting too complicated for many people.

To be fair, HDMI does simplify things. The problem is that your neighbors didn't know about the new, simple way - they only knew about the old, complicated way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazarus Still had to use two remotes to control the TV.

Blame consumers for that. The two industries complied with the government's order to get together and provide an alternative to the two remotes issue, and they did - and no one bought it. It seems, sometimes, that the only way people can ever be helped is for government to take away their choices and force them to do it the better way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingB Compared to TV's made years ago, newer TV's now have more features and just have more things that can break (Murphy's law).

True, but on average, they break less frequently during their first four years of service than televisions when we were growing up. Television repairman (because they were all men, of course) was a pretty common job back then. Now, it's pretty arcane. And beyond that, consumers again are the culprits here, rewarding companies that produce crap because they charge less, leaving superior brand to face either going out of business because they cannot survive on the handful of people still willing to pay for quality, or follow the industry on its compliance with the wishes of the bargain-hunters.

[Major Tom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound I think I am the only one who does not care about a gigantic screen.

No you're not the only one, but I think we are in the minority - at least in this forum!

I am not keen on room set-ups in which the TV seems to dominate and for my sensibilities, large-screens do this even in large rooms.

When I go back to the UK, the only private homes I usually visit are those of my brothers. One of them lives on a boat, so he and his wife use a laptop to view TV due to limited space. The other one lives in a semi-detached house and the family TV is fairly small (probably around 25"). I'm not sure if this is representative of TV set sizes in the UK, but they are probably smaller than in the US (many things are!)

As for me, I live in slightly under 300 sq ft of space and don't have a TV, choosing to watch all my movies and TV programs on the computer. I do have a nice Asus PA246 24" LCD monitor for my PC though. It has a very wide gamut and can handle the Adobe RGB color palette, which is way overkill for the type of photography I do. It cost me around $500 18 months ago and if I had done better research, could have gotten something else perfectly adequate for $100-200 cheaper. However I only have one monitor, wanted to get back on the internet fast, and the monitor was good, and in the store.

Then a few days later, after I had ditched my old monitor, I discovered that I could have repaired it for the price of a few replacement electrolytic capacitors. Doh!

[bUU]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Major Tom No you're not the only one, but I think we are in the minority - at least in this forum!

I have yet to see a really substantive, compelling argument for why the viewing experience on a smaller screen is necessarily better than on a larger screen. The only defensible objections I've seen to larger screens are (a) it just physically doesn't fit; (b) it's really expensive; or (c) what you indicated later in your message - an interior decorating aesthetic preference. These are all valid priorities to have, but just as valid is placing the viewing experience above those other considerations, as a matter of personal preference.

It is important to note that the preference for bigger screens is not frivolous. There is actual scientific data that measures to what extent certain screen sizes relative to distance from the screen provide the most immersive viewing experiences. Now ... That does imply that bigger screens do foster an immersive viewing experience - that getting deeper into the authors' vision and the craft of the actors is rewarding in some way, if you have a personal preference for the viewing experience over those other considerations (space, cost, decor). Very often, my spouse is surfing the Internet while we're watching television, so an immersive viewing experience is completely lost there. There's no benefit to be had when you're casually watching television.

And incidentally, the scientific data does not say "bigger is always better". There is a maximum size for each distance from the screen beyond which larger screens detract from the viewing experience (probably because you have to move your head around too much to appreciate all the nuances).

Having said all that, a big screen without a multi-channel sound system seems ridiculous to me. Better to get a smaller screen and a multi-channel sound system, than a larger screen with a single- or double-channel sound system - if the viewing experience is the priority. If you're just trying to impress the neighbors with how big your television is, that's another matter.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyro ... and they wanted to charge us some obscene amount to have some geek come to the house and connect everything properly and adjust the settings. ...The "settings" will be largely subjective (our opinion vs. the geek's) and if the thing isn't adjusted correctly out of the box, the "optimum" settings can be found on several of the geek sites I mentioned. I'll probably wind up messing around with them anyway.

I'm curious about those settings. I have also seen comments on TV forums about, 'oh, once you get everything adjusted right, the picture is better than xyz set that costs 2x! Here's my settings....'.

I'm skeptical. If a certain setting was so much better, why wouldn't that be the default, or at least a menu selection? Maybe the default has more 'wow factor' on the display floor, but isn't really so great for long term viewing? Like a stereo with the bass/treble pumped to sound 'impressive'?

Also, those settings are not just brightness, contrast, etc, are they? Do they get into some sub-menu with black levels and such?

I do care about my (stereo) sound, I'm pretty lax when it comes to video. The way I see it (pun intended), these flat screen TVs are about 200x better than what we had pre-digital OTA, that tweaking is just about like 'gilding the lily'. No ghosts, shadows, noise. More pixels, wide screen. It's fantastic. Remember the old days of adjusting horizontal and vertical hold? Seems like cave-man days!

So far, the first 20" LCD (Vizio) we bought >5 years ago is going strong, another in the family, just three years now with no problems. The kids have small ones that are two years old. I'm not sure if these things really have a shorter life than the old CRT style or not. I might need to wait 10-15 years to see.

-ERD50

[MichaelB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 I'm curious about those settings. I have also seen comments on TV forums about, 'oh, once you get everything adjusted right, the picture is better than xyz set that costs 2x! Here's my settings....'. I'm skeptical. If a certain setting was so much better, why wouldn't that be the default, or at least a menu selection? Maybe the default has more 'wow factor' on the display floor, but isn't really so great for long term viewing? Like a stereo with the bass/treble pumped to sound 'impressive'? Also, those settings are not just brightness, contrast, etc, are they? Do they get into some sub-menu with black levels and such? I do care about my (stereo) sound, I'm pretty lax when it comes to video. The way I see it (pun intended), these flat screen TVs are about 200x better than what we had pre-digital OTA, that tweaking is just about like 'gilding the lily'. No ghosts, shadows, noise. More pixels, wide screen. It's fantastic. Remember the old days of adjusting horizontal and vertical hold? Seems like cave-man days! So far, the first 20" LCD (Vizio) we bought >5 years ago is going strong, another in the family, just three years now with no problems. The kids have small ones that are two years old. I'm not sure if these things really have a shorter life than the old CRT style or not. I might need to wait 10-15 years to see. -ERD50

You're an audiophile, so you can appreciate the desire a videophile has to reproduce at home an image that originates elsewhere in a much "purer" form. Past a certain point, marginal improvements cost big $$. The audio world has done a better job at this than the video world. There is no question, however, that the flat screens and HD have vastly improved the video experience.

[bUU]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 I'm skeptical. If a certain setting was so much better, why wouldn't that be the default, or at least a menu selection?

The way they talk about it, it is almost as if that ideal setting that they're talking about depends on the specific room that the television is in, from where you're viewing the television, the color of the walls, etc. I do believe the professional calibration does take such things into account, but a specific set of "settings" published on a geek website isn't going to do that, so I have no idea what they could be trying to achieve with that, except to set down a set of settings that are internally-consistent based on some generally-accepted, nominal viewing conditions. As such, they won't do what they're supposed to do for you, to the extent that your viewing conditions vary from nominal.

Also, what calibration aims for is achieving as close to "realistic" display images as possible. But there is no way any specific set of settings can be universally "better": If you like everyone's complexion a little redder than actual, then "realistic" color settings won't be "better" for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Maybe the default has more 'wow factor' on the display floor, but isn't really so great for long term viewing?

Practically every television produced today has a "dynamic" mode, which is best for displaying the images in a viewing environment that features harsh, glaring, overhead fluorescent lighting. However, each of those televisions also have an easy way to switch to some other mode.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Also, those settings are not just brightness, contrast, etc, are they? Do they get into some sub-menu with black levels and such?

Definitely. I've played with gamma adjustment settings, a whole mess of white/black high/low settings, etc. It's all very complicated. Thank goodness for factory reset.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 The way I see it (pun intended), these flat screen TVs are about 200x better than what we had pre-digital OTA, that tweaking is just about like 'gilding the lily'. No ghosts, shadows, noise. More pixels, wide screen. It's fantastic. Remember the old days of adjusting horizontal and vertical hold? Seems like cave-man days!

I agree that a lot of people go too far with this, but there is one part of the process that really helps you understand why you may want to pay some attention to it. There are portions of the calibration where you're making an adjustment and stuff you see on the screen either appears or disappears, without the video information itself changing - the settings are responsible. If you have things set so that nuances in the image that you should be seeing aren't visible to you, or that there are artifacts on screen that you shouldn't be seeing but are, then you're probably not getting the best viewing experience. However, the more simple, self-calibration discs can help you with those adjustments, generally keeping you out of the "behind the curtains" menus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 So far, the first 20" LCD (Vizio) we bought >5 years ago is going strong, another in the family, just three years now with no problems.

I'd say you're lucky, but the reality is that even though Vizio's display problems are notorious, that doesn't mean that a majority of people will encounter problems. It's still going to be a minority, and probably a small minority, just a bit larger than the better brands, and - the notorious part - with significantly less support from the manufacturer regarding defects that are found after the warranty expires as compared to better brands.

[W2R]

While reading this thread, I clicked on the link to CNET's television reviews. In that article I found this gem:

Quote:

And if you just want to skip all the details and just buy a great television, my overall recommendation for 2012 and early 2013 is the Panasonic TC-PST50 series.

Then I went to Amazon, and found that a 55" TV in this Panasonic series can be purchased there for $1199.99, and qualifies for free shipping!

Amazon.com: Panasonic VIERA TC-P55ST50 55-Inch 1080p 600Hz Full HD 3D Plasma TV: Electronics

Aaargh. TV's are so unbelievably cheap these days. But really, I don't need another TV since I bought a 60" Samsung plasma 3D-HDTV last year. So, I doubt I'll buy this one. It is such a fallacy to think that one is saving money by buying something on sale or cheap, when one would not have bought it at all otherwise.

What a great deal, though. I am comforting myself with the thought that maybe by the time I actually need a TV again, the best around might cost half as much.

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by W2R TV's are so unbelievably cheap these days. I am comforting myself with the thought that maybe by the time I actually need a TV again, the best around might cost half as much.

Join the club. About 5 years ago I got our then super-duper Sony Bravia 40" 1080p HDTV discounted to $2200 when I bought it! What a deal!

Last week I found the current closest equivalent at Best Buy, regular price of $349.

My last CRT lasted 19 years before it died, I wonder how long LCDs last and what the mode of failure is?

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack I wonder how long LCDs last...

Probably longer than CRT's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack ... and what the mode of failure is?

Most likely the failure of the owner/operator will precede it.

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack Join the club. About 5 years ago I got our then super-duper Sony Bravia 40" 1080p HDTV discounted to $2200 when I bought it! What a deal! Last week I found the current closest equivalent at Best Buy, regular price of $349. My last CRT lasted 19 years before it died, I wonder how long LCDs last and what the mode of failure is?

I have no idea, but I wish you luck.

If high end 60" plasma TVs go down to $400 or so eventually, I'd litter my house with them.

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by W2R If high end 60" plasma TVs go down to $400 or so eventually, I'd litter my house with them.

My, aren't we turning into quite the spendthrift.

[happy2bretired]

Quote:

Originally Posted by W2R I have no idea, but I wish you luck. If high end 60" plasma TVs go down to $400 or so eventually, I'd litter my house with them.

It's getting close for you. I just bought a very nice Samsung 7000 series plasma (51") for $999. I love the picture quality...it's smart too. ;-)

[rbmrtn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack My last CRT lasted 19 years before it died, I wonder how long LCDs last and what the mode of failure is?

I still have 13" sears CRT my parents bought around 1976. Still works, thing won't die !

I've already thrown out a couple of LCDs after couple of years. Also there are no TV repair shops anymore, no one fixes them, just replaces. Repairs cost almost as much as new.

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbmrtn I still have 13" sears CRT my parents bought around 1976. Still works, thing won't die ! I've already thrown out a couple of LCDs after couple of years. Also there are no TV repair shops anymore, no one fixes them, just replaces. Repairs cost almost as much as new.

I have no doubt that CRT TV's lasted longer than modern TV's (and the picture was terrific on them, too). On the other hand, luck is always a factor; my 33" (180 pound! )Sony CRT TV that I bought in 2002, lasted only 4 years before the picture tube failed. I loved that TV, too!

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by W2R I have no doubt that CRT TV's lasted longer than modern TV's ...

Why 'no doubt'? CRTs get hot, and require lots of high voltage components. I'm pretty sure LCD and LED are low voltage (not plasma though, I think). High voltage stuff is more susceptible to voltage breakdown over time, and arcing from dust/humidity.

Seems like there are a lot of flat panel computer monitors still working, many were replaced just to go larger or more high rez, not due to failure. Millions of laptops with flat panels - failures there are probably mostly due to physical damage. I know of quite a few really old ones still in service.

Unless the build quality, or design margin is just lower than it was - but I don't think that's clear. Seems most of my stuff has been super reliable. I've got a 4 YO receiver that has 'ghosts' (switched modes sporadically, I need to turn off power to it when I'm not using it to avoid a 3AM blast of FM static), DWs pocket camera died after a few years, my 2005 iMac died in 2010 (part of the bad capacitor plague of that time). I'm having trouble thinking of anything else that just broke down around here.

Hopefully, these flat screen TVs will be as reliable as I expect - only time will tell.


-ERD50

[Tyro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker And incidentally, the scientific data does not say "bigger is always better". There is a maximum size for each distance from the screen beyond which larger screens detract from the viewing experience (probably because you have to move your head around too much to appreciate all the nuances).

That maximum size is still pretty gosh darn big.

Quote:

SMPTE (The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) provides a single guideline with regards to viewing distance, that the screen width should occupy a 30° field of view at minimum. The minimum guideline angle is also the same guideline that SMPTE uses for the back row of movie theaters, with regard to the field of view that the movie screen occupies for a viewer in the back row. The guideline stems from psychophysical experiments preformed during the development of the HDTV specifications. The experiments found that as you increased the field of view that video occupied beyond 20 degrees, viewers perceived the picture as more immersive and impressive. Successive increases in the view angle found that a plateau was reached when the display occupied about 80 degrees of the subjects’ field of view. Nevertheless, a 30° view angle was the original design goal for HDTV. With regard to elevation of the display, SMPTE recommends no more than a 15° elevation above a straight on view. Elevating the display beyond 15° will likely lead to physical discomfort in prolonged viewing situations. HDTV Size - Viewing Distance

Doing a little math, that maximum size, at an 80 degree field of view @ 10 ft. viewing distance would be a ~231" diagonal screen (~201 in. wide x ~113 in. tall).

See also: TV vs. projection: Your TV is too tiny | TV and Home Theater - CNET Reviews

In my recent research, trying to find out what size screen we should be looking for/at, I got optimum sizes (at ~10 ft./3 m. distance) ranging from 40" to 102". So then (for us) it came down to a matter of bang for the buck (size & features) getting the largest screen with the features that we wanted that fit within our budget.

[Tyro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by W2R I am comforting myself with the thought that maybe by the time I actually need a TV again, the best around might cost half as much.

Ah, but by then the technology will have changed again (OLED, 4K/Ultra High Def, Glasses-less 3D....) the price of which will likely be close to what you paid for your previous set.

[Tyro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack I wonder how long LCDs last and what the mode of failure is?

How long do TVs last? (Morrison's Mailbag) | TV and Home Theater - CNET Reviews

[Tyro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 I'm curious about those settings. I have also seen comments on TV forums about, 'oh, once you get everything adjusted right, the picture is better than xyz set that costs 2x! Here's my settings....'. I'm skeptical. If a certain setting was so much better, why wouldn't that be the default, or at least a menu selection? Maybe the default has more 'wow factor' on the display floor, but isn't really so great for long term viewing? Like a stereo with the bass/treble pumped to sound 'impressive'?

There is definitely more wow factor on the display floor. According to Consumer Reports, "TVs are usually set to a Retail or Store mode, which pumps up brightness and color to a level that looks great under fluorescent lights."
Top TV Ratings | TV Buying Guide

In the case of the set we bought, there are several THX modes
THX Certified Plasmas, LCD TVs & Projectors « THX.com that supposedly set things so that they most closely resemble the look & feel of the theater experience. We tried these settings right out of the box, and I have to say they were quite impressive (as were the 3D effects).

Factory settings are usually (IME) pretty close to median of what the equipment is capable of producing, while settings used by calibrators allegedly produce as close to "realistic" as possible. Either can serve as a baseline, as can those published online by professionals or geeks. To me, they're a starting point to learn about these settings, after which, I'll tweek to where I think it looks best, which is what I think many folks do.

Quote:

Also, those settings are not just brightness, contrast, etc, are they? Do they get into some sub-menu with black levels and such?

For many folks, a good picture is a good picture, and they may never see all those settings until/unless something changes as the electronics age, and they need to push more red or green, etc. Other folks are videophiles like some are audiophiles -- there are snobs aficianados in every walk of life -- who like to push their equipment to the max or constantly play with it to see if they like this or that better.