|
I'm going to make a shitload of money making a device that un-curves these stupid TVs
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
special concave glasses
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
It's because the curved screen is cheaper and easier to manufacture than flat at that size
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Prodigal T-REX posted:It's because the curved screen is cheaper and easier to manufacture than flat at that size Not according to Consumer Reports: Consumer Reports posted:For one, curved screens are more expensive to produce, so you'll pay a decent amount more than you would for a comparably sized flat-screen sibling. And with the LCD-based UHD and 1080p TVs, which use LED backlights, the curved shape actually makes it harder to spread light evenly across the panel, which could affect brightness uniformity. And for those viewing the TV at an angle, the curved screen can introduce some subtle geometric distortion of the image, which can result in eye fatigue as your brain tries to compensate for the effect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
they are curved because someone screwed up at the factory lmao EDIT: they probably killed themselves out of shame and poor working conditions 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
I read the next thing is going to be spherical orb TVs so you can see screen and still have people in your periphery.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
I don't understand the logic behind curved TVs, like curving the screen is the poo poo cheap ghetto movie theaters (looking at you Carmike) do to make small-rear end theaters accommodate BIG CINEMATIC SCREENS.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
Zogo posted:I read the next thing is going to be spherical orb TVs so you can see screen and still have people in your periphery.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
Justin Tyme posted:I don't understand the logic behind curved TVs, like curving the screen is the poo poo cheap ghetto movie theaters (looking at you Carmike) do to make small-rear end theaters accommodate BIG CINEMATIC SCREENS. they literally just ran out of things to do with TVs to make them "better" so they resorted to this clown poo poo and hoped no one would call their bluff
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
personally I think they look pretty cool, but my roommate has one and it doesn't seem to do anything at all for the viewing experience.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
Justin Tyme posted:I don't understand the logic behind curved TVs, like curving the screen is the poo poo cheap ghetto movie theaters (looking at you Carmike) do to make small-rear end theaters accommodate BIG CINEMATIC SCREENS. 4K is the next big thing in TV. You can buy a 4K TV now. However: -There is no physical medium (Blu Ray/DVD/etc.) that has been created yet to fit the giant-resolution 4K video files -No TV channels are currently streaming in 4K -Netflix and DirecTV have a very limited amount of 4K movies on-demand -Streaming 4K titles on Netflix requires a 25mbs data connection So expect 10 years worth of lovely gimmick TV's before technology catches up with 4K.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:4K is the next big thing in TV. You can buy a 4K TV now. you realize these are almost the exact same complaints that people used when analog switched to digital signals and 1080P HD was introduced? 5 years ago my TV production teacher was talking about how 4K was the highest resolution for films and here we are about to have it in our homes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
I would have probably gotten LG's 65 4K OLED (~$8,000 - $9,000) if it wasn't loving CURVED. They are releasing a flat 65 4K OLED this year so I very well might get one. Hopefully their sales will show more flat than curved sales so they will start to discontinue the curved bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
right now no one is upgrading computers and 4K is massive, sorry its going to be a while IMO, and its because people all have 1080p and poo poo computers and wont upgrade because at this point its such diminishing returns
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
a bone to pick posted:you realize these are almost the exact same complaints that people used when analog switched to digital signals and 1080P HD was introduced? isn't the highest resolution for films film
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
film...flim...limf...fmil...milf
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 07:33
|
|
|
Uncle at Nintendo posted:i cant even begin to wrap my head around that price?? Thats a Jeffrey Epstein TV.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 07:33
|
|
|
Let me be the first to say I'd rather have a 12mbps 720p file than a 12mbps 4k file. This race to the top on resolution is loving garbage if the bitrate can't support it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:4K is the next big thing in TV. You can buy a 4K TV now. The biggest complaint is: - No DisplayPort so they can't be used as large monitors for PC gaming
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
can we all at least agree that the war for frame rate in films is worse than the war for resolution? like, make the loving resolution as high as you want I don't give a gently caress, but don't give me some bullshit 48fps it looks like loving garbage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 07:40
|
|
|
a bone to pick posted:can we all at least agree that the war for frame rate in films is worse than the war for resolution? like, make the loving resolution as high as you want I don't give a gently caress, but don't give me some bullshit 48fps it looks like loving garbage. You are wrong and everything will be 60p+ in the future because we aren't neanderthals. The problem is conditioning. You expect theatrical releases to be 24p, so the look weird when they aren't. But you've never heard someone complain about Planet Earth or a sports broadcast being in 60i/p because that's what we are conditioned to accept. It is so goddamn superior it hurts my brain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
BossRighteous posted:You are wrong and everything will be 60p+ in the future because we aren't neanderthals. The problem is conditioning. You expect theatrical releases to be 24p, so the look weird when they aren't. But you've never heard someone complain about Planet Earth or a sports broadcast being in 60i/p because that's what we are conditioned to accept. It is so goddamn superior it hurts my brain. it looks like crap in the theater
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
BossRighteous posted:You are wrong and everything will be 60p+ in the future because we aren't neanderthals. The problem is conditioning. You expect theatrical releases to be 24p, so the look weird when they aren't. But you've never heard someone complain about Planet Earth or a sports broadcast being in 60i/p because that's what we are conditioned to accept. It is so goddamn superior it hurts my brain. oh yeah well red letter media disagrees with you so nyah 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
OLED will be the next thing thats worth it. plasmas are too expensive to make and are a shipping hazard, and LEDs are fun if you like washed out dark colors i just bought a 60" plasma for $500 last week and it's far superior to LEDs in pretty much every way except energy savings (lol) and longevity (also overvalued for consumer electronics) i like the idea of manufacturers tooling to 4K ahead of when media is available since that should make prices better when the content mediums become attractive. but if they're anything but OLED then you're sacrificing quality for density which is the same as caring about megapixels on a poo poo camera. synftw fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
a bone to pick posted:can we all at least agree that the war for frame rate in films is worse than the war for resolution? like, make the loving resolution as high as you want I don't give a gently caress, but don't give me some bullshit 48fps it looks like loving garbage. gently caress you, I can't wait for 60fps or more to become the norm. 24fps was chosen because it was the lowest framerate that could create the illusion of movement, saving cost on film length. Higher framerates can pull off fast action sequences and better pans in a way that 24fps can't. Film makers just need to figure out how to really take advantage of it, and not have to compromise on a mixed framerate release like the hobbit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
im the gayest oval office
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 07:52
|
|
|
synftw posted:i just bought a 60" plasma for $500 last week and it's far superior to LEDs in pretty much every way except energy savings (lol) and longevity (also overvalued for consumer electronics) Why are you making excuses for your lovely TV It's 2015 - get a flat screen LED, jfc
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
EightBit posted:gently caress you, I can't wait for 60fps or more to become the norm. 24fps was chosen because it was the lowest framerate that could create the illusion of movement, saving cost on film length. Higher framerates can pull off fast action sequences and better pans in a way that 24fps can't. Film makers just need to figure out how to really take advantage of it, and not have to compromise on a mixed framerate release like the hobbit. i dojnt think this is all wrong though because in low light the human eye cant see poo poo its the brightly lit scenes that look natural in high FPS and the low light conditions that throw our brain for a twist because in the dark we are used to not seeing anything except a motion blur just some of my thoughts, and for the record i did not like how the hobbit looked in high fps
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
So instead of the 50 inch 4k I should go for the 78.5 inch regular?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Why are you making excuses for your lovely TV How about you get a clue???????????????????????????????????????? How about that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
Also, if your tv doesn't basically comply with the sRGB color space, it's automatically poo poo and will look funny. loving with the gamma ramp to make your poo poo screen look brighter just makes it look like dog poo poo overall. A wider gamut color standard would be nice, but sRGB is pretty entrenched.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
EightBit posted:gently caress you, I can't wait for 60fps or more to become the norm. 24fps was chosen because it was the lowest framerate that could create the illusion of movement, saving cost on film length. Higher framerates can pull off fast action sequences and better pans in a way that 24fps can't. Film makers just need to figure out how to really take advantage of it, and not have to compromise on a mixed framerate release like the hobbit. yeah but it makes modern cgi and special effects look like loving garbage. seeing as how cgi is being used exponentially more every year I don't think it's going to be adopted any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
Its like i really am in the anime
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
EightBit posted:gently caress you, I can't wait for 60fps or more to become the norm. 24fps was chosen because it was the lowest framerate that could create the illusion of movement, saving cost on film length. Higher framerates can pull off fast action sequences and better pans in a way that 24fps can't. Film makers just need to figure out how to really take advantage of it, and not have to compromise on a mixed framerate release like the hobbit. yeah nevermind that 60fps looks like garbage, i gotta see my action films blow up better or whatever because i'm an adult
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
I'm sorry that a lifetime of terrible televisions and low framerate movies has ruined your eyes, don't poo poo on improving tech just because it looks different.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
sweetmercifulcrap posted:personally I think they look pretty cool, but my roommate has one and it doesn't seem to do anything at all for the viewing experience. yeah same. i said so earlier in the thread that the curved tv my parents got looks pretty spiffy. think it was a samsung? anyway yeah while they look aesthetically kinda neat they seem to add nothing, while likely detracting from the sacred Television Viewing Experience.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
I'll hold out for holographic tvs thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
Damo posted:yeah same. i said so earlier in the thread that the curved tv my parents got looks pretty spiffy. think it was a samsung? anyway yeah while they look aesthetically kinda neat they seem to add nothing, while likely detracting from the sacred Television Viewing Experience.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
people buying 'tvs' in tyool 2015 lmbo
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
numberoneposter posted:it took me a bit to get used to but i watched some euro broadcasts of the tour the france in high frame rate and it was rad. you can see the wind in the jersey and the pedal stroke is that much clearer, the little side to side bobs of the head while they climb, its all there like it should be. sports in 60fps is a no brainer, i think even the most die hard hfr haters would admit it looks and works great. it's just film that has people hung up, most because of a lifetime of watching tv be higher framerate than film that hfr makes people think film looks like poo poo tv when it's at 48+fps. However some people like you just plain dont like it divorced from the fact that they just arent used to or conditioned to it, and I respect that. While I really like HFR film so far, I don't know if I think all films should be hfr either, it seems to benefit action or movement heavy movies more than like a low-key period drama (god drat panning in HFR looks so loving smooth and solid I never want to see another action scene in blurry rear end lovely 24fps ever again). The problem is HFR will only truly succeed if all films do it, since it's too jarring to see one film in HFR one day, than a 24fps film the next. For people to get used to HFR, everything needs to be HFR, and I'm not sure that's not really appropriate, as much as I love it. it's a tricky sitch and as a result of it, I dont see there being many HFR films in the near future besides some specific "event" films that were directed with it in mind (like the next 15 avatar movies or whatever). synftw posted:i just bought a 60" plasma for $500 last week and it's far superior to LEDs in pretty much every way except energy savings (lol) and longevity (also overvalued for consumer electronics) For sure I think plasma is a great option still unless you got money to blow and the desire for an expensive OLED or whatever. it just looks drat good and the tech is drat cheap compared to everything out there atm. i love my panasonic st60 or whatever the gently caress it's called. got it a couple years ago and it looks better than most tvs I see around. Damo fucked around with this message at 08:46 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 08:36
|
|