|
Stefan Prodan posted:I just now got the HDR game bug everyone is talkin about haha Are you referring to the dim HDR game mode?
|
# ? Sep 17, 2017 15:46 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 06:42 |
Yep I played FIFA 18 demo and got the HDR Game bug, went back to playing normal FIFA 17 and it just went back to Game (User) as the picture setting
|
|
# ? Sep 18, 2017 02:37 |
|
So I bought a 50" Vizio M Series for my bedroom and set it up using the rtings settings and it's pretty nice. Sort of expected a bit more from it but that's probably because of the ridiculous picture my C6 has. Anyway, the annoying thing is it only offers a few apps built in and you have to cast everything else. I would be fine if it had plex but it doesn't so I still need my firetv hooked up to it (wife doesn't want to use her phone to stream to it).
|
# ? Sep 18, 2017 19:29 |
|
My outdoor TV only has cast, and my hatred of Google stepped up a notch after finding out it needs an internet connection to do anything and our cable is down.
|
# ? Sep 18, 2017 20:01 |
|
EL BROMANCE posted:My outdoor TV only has cast, and my hatred of Google stepped up a notch after finding out it needs an internet connection to do anything and our cable is down. If you bought a Vizio, then the box says "Home Theater Display" and not TV. It's not a TV, and they were pretty clear about the lack of a tuner.
|
# ? Sep 18, 2017 21:06 |
|
It’s not a Visio and it has a tuner. It’s only purpose is to bounce things from the lounge to the outside. I didn’t even know it had chromecast when I bought it to be honest and was originally quite impressed, but it gets added to the list of things that are now useless when the cable is out. TV still does what I expect it to do (which currently is display a blank screen until Comcast get their thumbs out their asses).
|
# ? Sep 18, 2017 21:15 |
|
EL BROMANCE posted:It’s not a Visio and it has a tuner. It’s only purpose is to bounce things from the lounge to the outside. I didn’t even know it had chromecast when I bought it to be honest and was originally quite impressed, but it gets added to the list of things that are now useless when the cable is out. Why not plug in an antenna and watch broadcast TV? Also I'm pretty sure that Chromecast can work without internet if you're directly mirroring your phone screen. I'm going to try that tonight.
|
# ? Sep 18, 2017 21:22 |
|
Funnily enough the one thing I kept in my Amazon cart before I scrapped everything to replace it with flashlights and batteries for the storm was an antenna. It was originally for the guest bedroom but instead has gone into the lounge. Being in south florida I get about 3 useful English channels, 10 awful English channels, and about 50 Spanish ones. I get our local fox and abc affiliates at least, I’m just out of range for cbs and nbc. It’s kept us informed with the rest of the world at least! I probably will put it outside once we’re back up and running, or get a proper outside one. The chrome cast feature seemed to indicate it couldn’t do anything while offline and googling seemed to tell me the same, but if there’s a workaround I’m all ears. I was just trying to bounce something from my Plex syncs on my phone to it.
|
# ? Sep 18, 2017 21:26 |
|
What antenna did you get?
|
# ? Sep 18, 2017 23:49 |
|
Just this one. There was some better looking ones for a similar price I wanted, but were out of stock at the time. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01FUB4ZG8/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apip_vCMzzekHRDfzq Im not convinced any indoor antenna is going to make the difference for channels based on what antenna web tells me, it’s no big deal for failover at least. Maybe I’ll get a good roof aerial and a HD Homerun setup in the future but it’s not a pressing thing.
|
# ? Sep 19, 2017 00:05 |
|
Antennas are dumb. I put one in my attic and got like 3 channels, put it in my basement and got 9.
|
# ? Sep 19, 2017 01:34 |
|
Sounds like your house is dumb.
|
# ? Sep 19, 2017 02:29 |
|
Don Lapre posted:Sounds like your house is dumb. Perhaps.
|
# ? Sep 19, 2017 02:35 |
|
Don Lapre posted:Sounds like your house is dumb. Or maybe he's dumb and thinks attics are basements and basements are attics. Man that'd be funny.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2017 00:27 |
|
I'm going to use my TV to stream from a pc or Netflix, play games on a regular ps4, but I don't really have any uhd content for it. Don't have a 4k player, so it would be Netflix for Dolby vision only. And I'm in Canada so the tcl doesn't sell up here. I've been looking at the m55-e0 from vizio fit about 950, but can't decide if I need that much TV. Would I be better off buying the E series or something else?
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:42 |
|
Kafka Esq. posted:I'm going to use my TV to stream from a pc or Netflix, play games on a regular ps4, but I don't really have any uhd content for it. Don't have a 4k player, so it would be Netflix for Dolby vision only. And I'm in Canada so the tcl doesn't sell up here. If you buy any of the Vizios, their Netflix client supports 4K so you'd be getting 4K content anyway.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:56 |
|
Can anyone here explain to me on a technical level what HDR actually is in a TV? There's lots of articles throughout the internet that show the "difference" but all you're seeing is two different pictures where one has noticeably worse color, or is washed out, or is too dark, or something like that, and it's displayed on your computer monitor. It doesn't really tell you anything. Furthermore, all of the marketing for HDR I've seen says that it has more accurate color. But how is it different from just having the right colored pixels in your video in the first place? Does that mean HDR has more color data per-pixel? So maybe there's 10 bits of color per channel rather than 8, or something like that, so that you don't see as much banding? Or does it have to do with the TV's contrast ratio? Or just all around ability to accurately reproduce colors in comparison to other TVs? Any help is appreciated, because right now I don't really get it.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 19:29 |
|
HDR allows a larger difference between light and dark areas. You really have to see it to understand but glow (on netflix) has a really easy to see demonstration. There are lots of scenes inside the warehouse they are wrestling in and you can see windows to the outside that are bright as hell. High end HDR tv's also show more colors than were possible previously due to the enhanced levels of brightness. The goal is to make video look more like what you see in real life.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 19:31 |
|
BonoMan posted:Or maybe he's dumb and thinks attics are basements and basements are attics. It's an Australian house built in the US.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 19:38 |
|
Kafka Esq. posted:I'm going to use my TV to stream from a pc or Netflix, play games on a regular ps4, but I don't really have any uhd content for it. Don't have a 4k player, so it would be Netflix for Dolby vision only. And I'm in Canada so the tcl doesn't sell up here. I am also in Canada and looking for a 55" 4K TV.. But I need a tuner so the Vizio isn't an option. Can anyone suggest an alternative? Mostly I watch OTA TV, game on my PS3/One and do the usual plex thing, so I guess I need the TV to do a little bit of everything.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 21:32 |
|
I've been thinking about upgrading my 2009 40" Samsung HDTV. It's still working great, but I want something bigger for my living room. Is there a such thing as a 4K TV that doesn't have SmartTV functionality? I could not give less of a poo poo about that, I don't care for it or would ever use it since I have all those capabilities via Chromecast or Apple TV or other means. In fact, I honestly don't care for 4K either. Maybe I'm an old gently caress, but 1080p is still gorgeous to me. I'm only asking about 4K since it seems like 1080p TVs have bit the dust. But, I guess future proofing isn't a bad thing either. So yeah, ideally, I'd like a nice TV without any bullshit SmartTV functionality. Contrast ratio, reproduction of colors, etc matter more to me than any of that other superfluous bullshit. Any suggestions? Thanks!
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 22:15 |
|
pliable posted:I've been thinking about upgrading my 2009 40" Samsung HDTV. It's still working great, but I want something bigger for my living room. No. Just don't use it.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 22:16 |
|
Buy a sony mastering 20" oled for $30,000 Otherwise just dont hook it up to the internets
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 22:18 |
|
Rickets posted:I am also in Canada and looking for a 55" 4K TV.. But I need a tuner so the Vizio isn't an option. Can anyone suggest an alternative? Don't let a $30 ATSC tuner from Amazon stand in the way of getting the best TV for the job.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 22:25 |
|
bull3964 posted:Don't let a $30 ATSC tuner from Amazon stand in the way of getting the best TV for the job. I did not know that was a thing, and I will take that into consideration. The review for the M55-E0 says it doesn't deal with reflections well and suffers from a poor viewing angle, both of which apply to my situation (the TV is right across from a large window which the seating is set against). Can anyone speak to real life use of this set in a well lit room?
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 22:39 |
|
Viewing angle is standard for LCD, it's neither significantly better or worse than average. The only current TV that's going to get good viewing angle results in rtings are OLEDs. Reflectively is also pretty standard. Some have better anti-glare filters, but it's all minor.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 22:53 |
|
GreenNight posted:No. Well, another concern is security. I don't trust TV manufacturers to patch up their software in a timely manner. The fact I even have to worry about this is absurd. I just want a drat TV that displays a fuckin picture without extra bullshit. But on that note, thanks for the info, I appreciate it!
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 23:39 |
|
Then don't connect it to a network.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2017 00:08 |
drat must be crazy to still use a flip phone in 2017
|
|
# ? Sep 22, 2017 00:13 |
|
Don Lapre posted:HDR allows a larger difference between light and dark areas. Thanks for this, but I still don't feel like I understand HDR. How does, for example, an HDR LCD TV allow "a larger difference between light and dark areas" in a way that an older TV couldn't also do by just using the right colored pixels? I know contrast ratio matters, and that's an advantage that an OLED display generally has over LCD, but that existed before HDR, so HDR must be something more than a good contrast ratio, right?
|
# ? Sep 22, 2017 06:09 |
|
HDR has two things that work hand in hand. Brightness and color gamut. Movies have always had a much wider color gamut than normal HD. Basically, the color triangle you aways see when you talk color gamut is wider for movies. UHD more or less matches the color gamut of the theater. The other part is brightness. Conventional HD is mastered to a max of 100 nits of brightness. So, during the mastering process, there's basically 100 levels of brightness that can be used in a scene. So, if you want something really bright in a scene, the darkest part of the scene can only get so dark due to the relative scale of 100 nits. So you have a frame of a night scene and you have an car with a headlight. You set the headlight at the mastered maximum, but now you only have so much headroom in the scene to make things dimmer. So, your either crush the blacks or compress the dynamic range to preserve detail. UHD stuff is mastered to either 1000 nits or 4000 nits. That gives you much more headroom. Sparks flying in a scene could be mastered at 900 nits which would make them very bright, but then you also have a ton of room below that to bring out darker details. It becomes even more apparent when you combine WCG and HDR due to the efficiencies of some colors. Having greater brightness range means you can get much more saturation out of inefficient colors, allowing you to display things that simply weren't possible before.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2017 06:30 |
|
I'm pretty tired of standards constantly changing in a transparent marketing effort to drive sales, especially while critical aspects of some display technologies are left "unfixed" generation after generation. 4k isn't that important to me; most of my sources are 1080p or worse. HDR sounds nice but is only marginally important to me. LED TV makers should be focusing on core tech issues like panel uniformity, black level, and viewing angle, all of which are much more important to me than 4k support or HDR or smart features.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2017 06:56 |
|
Number_6 posted:I'm pretty tired of standards constantly changing in a transparent marketing effort to drive sales, especially while critical aspects of some display technologies are left "unfixed" generation after generation. 4k isn't that important to me; most of my sources are 1080p or worse. HDR sounds nice but is only marginally important to me. LED TV makers should be focusing on core tech issues like panel uniformity, black level, and viewing angle, all of which are much more important to me than 4k support or HDR or smart features. HDR and 4K can be easily demoed with a video loop and a generic blueshirt can point at the detailed, colorful picture. Also it's not like those things are unsolved, there are plenty of TVs that get those things right too, just they're also loaded with other features because the lower markets just don't care if the backlight bleeds. Anyways, a bit over a decade ago your same rant would have applied to HDTV. Most of your sources were 480i (TV) or 480p (DVD) with the OTA stations still mostly broadcasting upscaled 480i if they had a digital signal going at all yet. Technology moves forward, and those of us who have the current thing often want something better once we get used to it. Also the standard screen sizes have grown. When DVD was high tech my 35" CRT was still considered a "big screen" and pretty much anything larger required projection. These days 32" is pretty much the entry level and somewhere around 55". 70+ inch direct-view screens have gone from specialty equipment that costs more than a car to something you can choose from a half dozen options at Costco. 1080p just doesn't hold up on a screen that's large by modern standards. wolrah fucked around with this message at 14:16 on Sep 22, 2017 |
# ? Sep 22, 2017 14:13 |
|
If I want maybe a 65" HDR OLED TV, what should I be looking at? Are there different price tiers for them at this point? Any prediction on how the price would change come next summer?
|
# ? Sep 22, 2017 17:21 |
|
All of LGs current TVs have the same panels. So if your aren't until the extra features the higher models have (soundbar, "wallpaper" display), just get the cheapest. So, you are looking for a B7.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2017 17:34 |
|
C7 is better because its all black. on the display.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2017 18:06 |
|
$3200, drat. Hopefully the prices come down a lot by next summer or so.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2017 18:20 |
|
I paid $3984 like a month ago. Price went down 2 weeks later. Oh well, worth every penny man. loving TV is glorious.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2017 18:42 |
|
I got mine for $2600 and made a $500 claim to citi so net $2100 for my 65" c7p
|
# ? Sep 22, 2017 19:21 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 06:42 |
|
bull3964 posted:HDR has two things that work hand in hand... Now I'm curious: what kind of color model do non-HDR HDTVs use? Or HDR ones for that matter? I thought it was RGB but given this business about brightness levels I'm guessing there's more to it than that?
|
# ? Sep 22, 2017 19:50 |