Jump to content

3D Televisions


Redlambo
 Share

Recommended Posts

BWUK/DS: I can write a book on why the 16:9 ratio was/is/and will remain to be stupid but you would likely rebutt every point. Likewise, your analysis of the tv technology is flawed --- consumer or otherwise --- in many ways; it's like saying most cars on the road are the same as they work on more or less the same principles since the invention of the automobile. But you are the resident cynic and it'll be off topic to discuss this further. So let's just say your idea of choosing tv matches your selection of mattress. :icon_mrgreen:

 

I'm curious to know why you think it's stupid. I can't see any real reason to view 16:9 as a stupid aspect ratio for TVs, or at least not any stupider than any other possibility. Content has been created in various aspect ratios for the last 60 years. It's a personal preference as to what aspect ratio someone prefers. Which aspect ratio are you suggesting is better and why? Without physical masking, I don't believe any aspect ratio is any better than any other. I personally prefer 2.35. Screen space is wasted no matter what and no display technology that I've seen has good enough blacks to truly make letterboxing unnoticeable. I guess OLED could change that, but those aren't really available yet.

 

Perhaps the analysis is flawed, but it's good enough for 99.9999% of people. What percentage of people pay for professional calibration and what sets come perfectly calibrated? Most people who buy even the higher end sets don't have a clue what the image should look like. People often have different opinions on PQ, and very often find a well calibrated image to be boring because they are so used to display models with blinding brightness and saturation. Slowpoke would be wasting his money on anything exceptionally good or expensive. It would just be a case of paying more for something you don't notice simply because it's better.

 

Companies source panels from all over as well. Loewe uses Samsung panels in some of their sets, as does Sony. I'm sure you can find Sharp panels in there as well.

 

I recently went TV shopping with a friend who didn't know anything about TVs. I pulled some general calibration settings from AVS forum and applied them to several TV's that he was interested in and ask him to pick the one he liked best. He picked the LG. I personally thought the blacks were better on the other sets, but he thought the picture was best on the LG. Which set was best? Who knows. The setting wasn't ideal, the calibrations weren't perfect (and never would be,) and the source was a random Smurfs 3D Bluray. I liked one, he liked the other. I'm pretty sensitive to poor black levels, but he thought they looked the same. He also ended up with a nasty case of input lag over HDMI and now has to use component cables to play PS3 hahaha.

 

That's why I think you should just buy based on size, price, and style. Oh, and personal taste in PQ. I currently use an average Panasonic projector on a 125" 2:35 screen. Black levels aren't amazing and no doubt a new TV has better image quality. That said, I find the experience superior to anything on a any TV currently available or available in the near future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 158
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Always go as big as possible. It's amazing how they "shrink" after just a few weeks of ownership...plus you're going to own it for years potentially, might as well not let $1500 be a deciding factor when it's going to be amortized over so many days with it. :icon_mrgreen:

 

And you're right to ignore the in-store comparison as any sort of evaluation metric. The varied settings from set to set conspire to make those sort of eyeball tests totally useless for the most part.

 

Yeah, don't go based on what the picture looks like in the store. Floor model settings are garbage. Google each set and see if you can find some settings that other owners reached after various levels of calibration. They won't be perfect as each set is different and each person is different, but that may help you get a general idea about how the picture looks under some decent calibration. Bring your own Bluray of something with a really good transfer. I personally think animated movies from Pixar make an excellent source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian, I think the points that you have made had already answered some of your own questions. There is no point for me to waste time on responding on something that you already have a bias on. Those in the know would have spotted the dilemma you had drawn yourself into already. Sharp & Samsung do plenty of OEM for our manufacturers. But each manufacturer have their own circuitry to get the best out of the OEM panels. (Similar ideas on Lotus using Toyota engines.)

 

Chipster, try the BD of Planet Earth by BBC. it is of reference quality and offers real world scenery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, my neighbour/friend who works at the place I get all my techstuff from is at the Berlin Electronic -12 and he just sent me a pic of the new 55" OLED from LG, it is sick!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, my neighbour/friend who works at the place I get all my techstuff from is at the Berlin Electronic -12 and he just sent me a pic of the new 55" OLED from LG, it is sick!!

 

How can you tell? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, my neighbour/friend who works at the place I get all my techstuff from is at the Berlin Electronic -12 and he just sent me a pic of the new 55" OLED from LG, it is sick!!

 

please post that photo along with model number! i'm really considering buying a LG 55LM7600 soon, still debating though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing to remember about the 240 hz sets...

 

I have the Sharp 60 240 3d in room and 80 240 in living room. I enjoy a bright picture because I game a good bit, and just enjoy a more vibrant picture. They only complaint I had with these sets is when you activate the 240hz Aquamotion is decrease back lighting substantially. However, I have every component running full 1080 so 120hz does not have artifacts or motion blur so it's not a big deal now. I would love to be able to run 240 with 100% of the back light capability.

 

Best

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As promised :icon_thumleft:

 

Only 4mm thin :shock:

 

very nice, but i believe that's a $10k tele! it's going to be quite awhile before the prices for a OLED tele become "reasonable".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

very nice, but i believe that's a $10k tele! it's going to be quite awhile before the prices for a OLED tele become "reasonable".

 

:iamwithstupid:

 

OLED, and to a lesser extent 4K resolution support as well, are still off the radar/too early yet in terms of my own feature requirements for someone in the market right now.

 

I wouldn't wait on either of them this round, now would I advise anyone else to.

 

Worry about them 5+ years from now when they're both somewhat mainstream by that point, and in 4K's case has actual physical media support for content that's readily available by then ('4K Blu-ray' or whatever they wind up calling them...because you ain't gonna be "streaming" any 4K content anywhere, too much data to push).

 

For now it's all about buying the best 1080p set you can afford, at the size you're most comfortable with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Mako and spooky.

 

Back in 2007, Sony launched the XEL-1, the 1st consumer OLED tv but it was only 10.5". While the technology continues to be developed, larger screen OLED is years away due to cost & reliability. OLED, when working properly, is tops but the key word is working properly.

 

It's easy for any manufacturer to whip up a prototype or a pre-production model to be shown at a show. Getting the actual thing to reach consumer market and able to sell it at a reasonable price while getting UL, CSA, CE certified along with giving a fair warranty for it is the hard part. And to wit, LG isn't exactly best known for its reliability and low-failure rates either.

 

As to Wilson's 16:9 ration bias, like I said, no need to waste time responding; do a search & perhaps he might discover something. As 2 very basic examples, how many North American TV stations actually capture digital broadcast in true 16:9 ratio? So why have a tv with that ratio when the signal coming in isn't at the same ratio? And as movie theatres are going digital especially with the arrival of 4K, how come the majority of the film industry is still embracing anamorphic instead of 16:9. Just think if 16:9 was THE standard, we won't be watching only 2/3 or less of the entire monitor or screen from a DVD or BD; every inch of the screen will be filled & with no black stripes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did search, but I found nothing really negative regarding it.

 

What do you mean? Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS, HBO, and many others definitely shoot and broadcast in 16:9 HD. Even the local news is. Are you saying they are shooting in something else initially? Are you talking about overscan?

 

Film makers will continue to shoot in whatever aspect ratio suits their taste and creativity. LotR was 2.35, Avengers was 1.85, Hobbit is 1.78. I could see 1.85 being a possibility, but 16:9 was a TV standard, not a film standard. 1.85 is barely different than 1.78 and very little is lost when zooming/cropping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Launch price on that 55" sucker will actually be 17K over here, for 55"......

 

On a side note, I love my new 65" Samsung, it is awesome in every way, looks very nice and it packs much more value than any other OLED so I agree with all of the above regarding the waiting part for new tech to be more mainstream and therefore much cheaper :icon_thumleft:

 

But it is always nice to have the newest shit ASAP, who would want an Aventador in 2018 anyway? :icon_mrgreen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just think if 16:9 was THE standard, we won't be watching only 2/3 or less of the entire monitor or screen from a DVD or BD; every inch of the screen will be filled & with no black stripes.

 

:iamwithstupid:

 

Still can't beleive one has to zoom/crop when buying state of the art TV sets and watching modern movies :eusa_wall:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:iamwithstupid:

 

 

For now it's all about buying the best 1080p set you can afford, at the size you're most comfortable with.

 

Can you explain what you mean by a 1080p setup? I would be connected to a Verizon FIOS box and a blu ray player and that's it. You just mean all HD sources? I'm pretty sure I'm going to go with the 70" after thinking about it more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you explain what you mean by a 1080p setup? I would be connected to a Verizon FIOS box and a blu ray player and that's it. You just mean all HD sources? I'm pretty sure I'm going to go with the 70" after thinking about it more.

 

That's right Chip, as long as the set supports 1080p, and they all do for the most part currently, then the size choice becomes the most important decision.

 

It's easy to fall into the microscopic minutia on these sets as Brian mentioned, but the truth is that most of them are excellent to 99% of the eyes that will be watching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did search, but I found nothing really negative regarding it.

 

What do you mean? Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS, HBO, and many others definitely shoot and broadcast in 16:9 HD. Even the local news is. Are you saying they are shooting in something else initially? Are you talking about overscan?

 

Film makers will continue to shoot in whatever aspect ratio suits their taste and creativity. LotR was 2.35, Avengers was 1.85, Hobbit is 1.78. I could see 1.85 being a possibility, but 16:9 was a TV standard, not a film standard. 1.85 is barely different than 1.78 and very little is lost when zooming/cropping.

 

 

:rolleyes: :lol2: :rolleyes: :lol2:

 

You obvious have no idea about tv broadcast and I'm not talking about overscan at all. :lol2: And as such, there is no further point worth elaborating to you.

 

My point exactly on the film. How many people bought big tv just to watch tv broadcast? Sure, there's the sports games (and even in HD I may add) but that's why these large tv's are called Home Theatre tv's/monitors. They also serve the purpose of DVD & BD playback and hence the multi-aspect ratio confusion & the 16:9 BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't see what you're laughing about. You still won't say what you mean. I'm just asking you to explain what you mean when you question how may stations are actually capturing and broadcasting in 16:9. And what do you think is the source of all this footage? Are their cameras, from f900's to 5dII's, not capturing in native HD? Are you talking about rectangular hdcam pixels?

 

I'm pretty sure they are doing broadcasts in HD as well. Are you saying most major local affiliates are not broadcasting in HD? If they aren't, what format are they broadcasting?

 

Um, most people buy TV's -- big or small -- to watch TV broadcasts. People have only begun buying big TV's because prices have come down so much. The home theater didn't even exist for most people and only does now because it's so cheap. Compare hours of TV watched vs hours of films watched on HBO/Showtime/Netflix. You're right that people like to watch DVD's and BD's, and some of us watch little to no TV and have home theaters for exactly that -- home theater -- but the reality of the situation is that we are the minority.

 

TV needed a high definition standard and they decided on one that also happened to be more film friendly. Moving to a new aspect ratio like 16:9 was no worse than going from 1.33 to widescreen formats 50 years ago. And 20 years from now, there will be more content in 16:9 than all others combined. And 20 years from now people will still probably be using various aspect ratios that don't quite fit 4K and 8K displays.

 

Besides, what difference does it really make what widescreen format you use when 1.33 and 2.35 content still won't fit? I wasn't able to find any information on why they chose 1.78 instead of 1.85 other than the averaging thing, but the difference is tiny and can easily be 'fit' to the screen with no real noticeable difference.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

I'll keep laughing as you really have no idea what you are talking about. Thanks for the entertainment; it's been a long day at the studio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...