Video Is It Time to Replace Your First HDTV? (Video) 418
Robin Miller: This is Dr. Alfred Poor known to most Slashdot readers as Alfred, and he is an expert on high-definition televisions and televisions in general. Today we’ve rounded him up to talk about televisions and high-definitions televisions. If you’re one of the many people who bought a high-definition television when they first got reasonably priced around five years ago, is it time to look at another TV. Alfred is it? Should we look at new TVs or just stick with what we have?
Alfred Poor: Well, the first thing is getting a lot of attention these days is the new higher definition sets that have come out.
Robin Miller: Right.
Alfred Poor: CES wants us to call them UHD for Ultra High Definition, but everybody is calling them 4K because that stands roughly for 4,000, which is roughly how many vertical lines of resolution they’ve got. In other words, they’re roughly 4,000 pixels across. And that compares to roughly the 2,000 that you have in a standard 1080p television that we have already.
So essentially, if you have a 50-inch 4K display, it’s the same as taking four 25-inch 1080p displays and gluing them together to make a bigger one. So it’s really just a question of having more pixels. There’s a bunch of problems with this; the most important one of all is that there is not all that much content available yet in 4K resolution. There’s tons in standard HD, the 1080p HD resolution.
The movie theaters are using 4K, a lot of stuff is being produced for the movies originally in 4K, but not that much of it is available to consumers. Sony has started by selling a little box that it has some movies in 4K installed in it and you hook it up to the Internet and they’ll be able to download or you’ll be able to buy and download more movies in that resolution, but that’s a pretty narrow stream of content.
The second big problem is as the Sony box demonstrates, there’s not a big infrastructure to deliver this. You can’t get 4K over any cable systems at this point, there may be some experiments going on with satellite, but again your standard channels are coming through in 1080 at best. A lot of cable systems end up compressing the signals so badly that you’re not even getting a good quality 1080 out of it, there’s no way they’re going to be able to send four times that number of pixels and get you a good image quality.
Robin Miller: Mine is giving me a 720p actually, that’s what I get from my cable provider.
Alfred Poor: But again, just like MP3, you can adjust the amount of compressions, and you can squeeze it so hard, you now limit the amount of bandwidth required that you start getting artifacts, and MP3 sounds bad, with some cable systems you actually can see visual artifacts as a result of all the compression.
Robin Miller: I actually can if I’m watching – I live in Tampa Bay Bucs territory, but if I’m watching a better football team that moves faster than Bucs.
Alfred Poor: So delivery of the content is a problem and also storage, I mean we’ve got Blu-ray which can do 1080p, but there’s no 4K Blu-ray definition systems available at this point. They’re in development, but we don’t have them yet. So to buy 4K in order to get the higher resolution and the better looking image while it’s going to be tough to find the source material, it’s going to show you the better image.
Now a lot of people talk about how good the up-scaling is on some of these sets, and that’s certainly true, but Robin when I can give you $2 and you can up-scale it and give me back $8, then I believe in up-scaling.
Robin Miller: And here is the thing though too and another thing, I’m old, I really am, I’m ancient, I get social security, but still, I’m not that old, I have a TV, I have a small living room, it’s not huge, I watch a 42 inch TV from about eight feet away, and I will tell you very bluntly that I cannot personally tell the difference between really high quality, well-shot 480 and 720, I can’t tell.
Alfred Poor: Right, at that distance you shouldn’t be able to, the minimum screen for a high definition – minimum size screen for high definition at about eight feet is it really needs to be 47 or 50 inches before anyone with good eyesight is going to be able to tell the difference. So if you’re not going to get a big enough screen, you’re not going to be able to tell the difference. So if you’re sitting more than five feet away, I mean eight feet away I’d say, and you want to get a 50 inch screen, well just physically you are probably not going to be able to tell the difference between a 4K screen and 1080p HD screen.
Robin Miller: And because of my room layout and the way it’s designed, there is no real room for – before I bought it, I measured it and I said, the maximum I can put here comfortably and look good is a 42 inch. So, you know what the real big difference I see or have with Blu-ray when I get a Blu-ray piece or good high def, sound.
Alfred Poor: Well, there is that, yeah
Robin Miller: I have a – now I don’t have a $1 billion sound set, I have a Logitech front and rear speaker and center, and sub woofer piece that I bought refurbed from Newegg for $40.
Alfred Poor: Wow.
Robin Miller: Yeah, and I have friends come over and say, wow, your home theater thing is wonderful, and the answer is, it’s real 7.1 because I hooked all the wires up and most people don’t.
Alfred Poor: Right, most people don’t. Now the other thing here is the problem with the 4K is again, the majority of people out there are watching DVDs on their HD televisions and think they look great.
Robin Miller: They do.
Alfred Poor: We forget that DVD is old fashion 480p standard definition, it looks so great because it’s digital and eliminates all that analog noise that we get with the VHS tapes, but the fact is that the average consumer is not screaming for more resolution. They’re very happy with the low-res DVDs that they’ve got.
Robin Miller: I’m right there with them, I mean, I’ve gone up, I have a Blu-ray player and I’ve gone up to the redbox thing and I’ve paid the extra for the Blu-ray and a couple of times I’ve gotten the same movie, Blu-ray and DVD, and I brought them and like I said I can’t tell the difference.
Alfred Poor: Yeah, well that – again, with your screen size and the viewing distance, it’s unlikely that you would be able to tell the difference. Now there are somethings about the new TVs that are available now, that weren’t around five years ago that might give you a reason to buy a new one. And one of that is the whole smart TV, Internet connected TV kind of thing.
Robin Miller: You mean like that little Google, little tiny device I have stuck on the back that cost me $40.
Alfred Poor: Right, so a lot of people are adding those functionalities to their existing television with the Chromecast or buying one of the local boxes or Western Digital has got them and lot of people offer these boxes that will add the Internet connectivity, but it gives you access to Netflix and Hulu Plus and Youtube and a whole bunch of kind of online sources that a lot of people want to watch. I know in our house we watch a lot of Netflix and Hulu Plus streamed right to our television.
Robin Miller: Yes, a long time ago a friend of mine in Boston said you don’t have a Wii, you need a Wii and he gave us one as a gift because he had gotten a bunch of those, and so he gave us a Wii, and that gave us Netflix.
Alfred Poor: Yeah, the Wii will do that, the Xbox also is a platform for streaming. It’s funny, some studies have shown that people spend as much time or more watching Netflix and other online streaming content on their Xboxes than they do playing video games.
Robin Miller: We do on our Wii.
Alfred Poor: Which is – well, the Wii is more of a family kind of device in the first place, but it’s
Robin Miller: Well, we’re a family people
Alfred Poor: Right, I know, but I’m thinking a lot of people think of the Xbox as being more of a hardcore gaming platform and yet people are using it to watch a lot of video content as well. So yeah, we do have the option of adding a low cost box to your existing television and getting a lot of that functionality at the same time.
Robin Miller: Well, the Chromecast thing, I’ll tell you and I’m going to do a review shortly for Slashdot of it, and here is a teaser for you folks. It’s nice but it hasn’t changed my life. It hasn’t done much that I couldn’t already do with the Blu-ray, the $85 on sale, whether we buy at Target or something because I don’t even remember Blu-ray little box.
Alfred Poor: Yeah, a lot of Blu-ray players also include the Internet connectivity, so that’s another way you can get it. But again, if you don’t have it through one of those channels, getting a new television is one way to get it. Another reason for getting a new television may well be, especially if you bought one five years ago, is you’ve probably bought one that was too small. And so now today the 47 inch models are from good brands are under $500. I saw a 60-inch set for $800 advertised today. So the really big ones have come down so far in price that if you bought one that’s too small for the viewing distance that you have, you might think about migrating the smaller ones to some place where the viewing distance would be more appropriate or doesn’t matter so much like a guest room and getting yourself a proper sized one for your viewing space.
Betteridge's law (Score:3)
When I read about the hackability of smart TV's with cameras, I have to escalate beyond Betteridge to "Hell no!". My present HD TV is just fine, thank you.
Re:Betteridge's law (Score:4, Interesting)
If only they made a tape...opaque... [homedepot.com]that could be used to cover up the cameras - then we'd only have to worry about the microphone - which might befall an accidental exposure to superglue. Microphones don't work when the little inner bits don't vibrate anymore. :D
Re:Betteridge's law (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure the NSA has a secret deal with electrical tape manufacturers and camera producers which allows them to see the image through the tape by simply enabling a secret camera function. ;-)
Re:Betteridge's law (Score:5, Interesting)
allows them to see the image through the tape
You joke, but it's not all that far fetched.
I've got a light-amplifying scope that my father-in-law gave me. One evening (not particularly dark out) I wondered why the image seemed dimmer than usual -- and then I realized I'd left the lens cap on. Yes, it could see through the lens cap. Some nominally black plastic is fairly transparent to near-red IR. Most digital or video cameras can see IR (test it by looking at an IR remote signal).
I haven't tried it with electrical tape, though. Yet.
Re:Betteridge's law (Score:4, Interesting)
Use metalized tape. Like the aluminum film stuff you are supposed to use on ducts instead of duct tape.
Serious question - what is that tape called?
Re: (Score:3)
The caption for that picture reads:
An example of color digital infrared photography. The camera's infrared blocking filter has been removed.
You can see the "normal" visible light colors in the parts of the scene that aren't highly IR reflective like the sky and some of the stone. From the same Wikipedia page, here [wikipedia.org] is a picture from a camera that is setup as you describe. Note the complete absence of blue in the sky.
This scene I originally linked looks very similar to "night vision" security cameras that use IR illuminators and have no IR cut filter for daytime. Highly NIR reflective objects look white, but oth
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's totally irrelevant if you don't hook your TV up to the internet in the first place.
Besides, any self-respecting slashdotter has their own HTPC hooked up to their essentially HD Monitor (TV) and has it whitelisted for certain outbound services only and no direct inbounds (upon request only). Solves a whole host of issues. Oh, and the HTPC doesn't have a camera nor mike attached, so until the TV can be hacked over HDMI in that scenario, It appears to be relatively safe for now.
Re:Betteridge's law (Score:5, Insightful)
If only they made a tape...opaque... [homedepot.com]that could be used to cover up the cameras - then we'd only have to worry about the microphone - which might befall an accidental exposure to superglue. Microphones don't work when the little inner bits don't vibrate anymore. :D
Yea, I dunno about you, but I don't like to pay a several-hundred-dollar premium for hardware I'm going to intentionally break as soon as I open the box. That just seems stupid.
I'll take a dumb display for half the price any day of the week.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah - choose it without, but if you can get a wonderful deal on something that just happens to have a camera and microphone in it you will -never- use - why let a thing like a camera or microphone be a deal killer when there are such easy fixes for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah - choose it without, but if you can get a wonderful deal on something that just happens to have a camera and microphone in it you will -never- use - why let a thing like a camera or microphone be a deal killer when there are such easy fixes for them.
I see where you're coming from, but chances are if you can get a "wonderful deal" on a 'smart' tv with all that spy gear built in, you can also get a dumb display of competing size and resolution for much, much less.
Hell, I don't even need speakers in mine, just some sort of audio-out so I can hook the display to my surround sound system.
Re: (Score:3)
Screen without speakers costs a LOT more than screens with - reason: production quantities.
Personally, I'd prefer a nice screen, with a single HDMI input, no speakers, no tuners, no internet ...
Good luck finding one of those :(
Re:Betteridge's law (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would I want to spend money on a new TV whose primary new feature will be disabled within minutes of setting it up? Why not skip the whole thing and use the old TV till it dies?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I keep my smart TV directly on the public internet.
Re: Betteridge's law (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Hell no" for me as well, but for a different reason -- WHY??? I'll get a new TV when the one I bought in 2002 dies. By then I can probably get a 100 inch TV for $300.
I'm not going to just spend my damned money for the sake of spending it.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure my formerly present HD was just fine, but unlike the TV I've had since I was in 3rd grade (some 30 odd years ago), my HDTV simply stopped working 3 years after I bought it. $900 to fix apparently, or get a new one for $700.
they don't make em like they used to...
I don't have a HDTV (Score:5, Funny)
You insensitive clod.
Much better (Score:5, Interesting)
My new 42" LED backlit screen consumes about 1/3rd the power (50-60W vs 140-150) of my first generation 1080p LCD, it also looks better. I probably wouldn't have upgraded if it hadn't been for a ghosting artifact caused by my HTPC menu getting burned in on the old one but now I couldn't imagine going back.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
My new 42" LED backlit screen consumes about 1/3rd the power (50-60W vs 140-150) of my first generation 1080p LCD, it also looks better. I probably wouldn't have upgraded if it hadn't been for a ghosting artifact caused by my HTPC menu getting burned in on the old one but now I couldn't imagine going back.
With a delta of less than 100w it will take you a lot of TV watching to come close to a break even on cost from the efficiency gain (say, 30 _thousand_ hours if you spent $350 on your tv). Efficiency is a good thing, but it is important to know the context.
Re:Much better (Score:5, Informative)
My new 42" LED backlit screen consumes about 1/3rd the power (50-60W vs 140-150) of my first generation 1080p LCD, it also looks better. I probably wouldn't have upgraded if it hadn't been for a ghosting artifact caused by my HTPC menu getting burned in on the old one but now I couldn't imagine going back.
With a delta of less than 100w it will take you a lot of TV watching to come close to a break even on cost from the efficiency gain (say, 30 _thousand_ hours if you spent $350 on your tv). Efficiency is a good thing, but it is important to know the context.
Americans average 34hrs/week watching TV, so it would take 16 years (less, assuming electricity costs decrease).
British people watch less, 28hrs/week, but electricity costs more (average £0.145/kWh), so a TV costing £250 and saving 100W would take almost 12 years to pay for the saving.
My plasma TV's consuming ~350W now, with a dark sci-fi film (brighter scenes use more power for a plasma TV). The saving here would be greater: about 5 years to pay for, less since we don't just watch dark films.
Sources:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/annual-domestic-energy-price-statistics [www.gov.uk]
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/communications-market-reports/cmr12/tv-audio-visual/uk-2.42/ [ofcom.org.uk]
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/americans-spend-34-hours-week-watching-tv-nielsen-numbers-article-1.1162285 [nydailynews.com]
Re: (Score:3)
My new 42" LED backlit screen consumes about 1/3rd the power (50-60W vs 140-150) of my first generation 1080p LCD,
What do you work out the payback of that to be?
~$30/year assuming you watch TV 8 hours a day, every day. I sure hope power consumption wasn't a major factor for you.
I probably wouldn't have upgraded if it hadn't been for a ghosting artifact caused by my HTPC menu getting burned in
So your old TV was basically broken. You'd probably have bought a new one fairly soon even if technology hadn't move
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't make a financial sense, but having a new TV that is low power, especially one that runs off of 12 volts is a good thing to do when RV-ing, where when boondocking, one needs to save on every watt that comes from the battery bank.
A 60 watt TV's energy use can be mostly compensated for by a decent 200-300 watt solar panel and a good charge controller. A TV that uses three times that will be pushing things unless one also charges with generator power.
For home use, it doesn't matter that much. Howev
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He started out saying "RV-ing". I think "camping" must have been a slip of the tongue (or fingers since typing with a tongue... ewww.)
Not until 4k displays become common (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, and my _phone_ has the same resolution as these 50" panels. Why the fuck he's talking about "image quality"? Until we get 4k displays the quality differences are non-existent.
Re:Not until 4k displays become common (Score:5, Insightful)
Why replace perfectly fine 1080p HDTV?
Because we're in a recession and need to stimulate pointless consumer spending, that's why! Now, are you in favor of spending all your money on stuff that will not appreciably improve your life, or are you a Communist?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why the fuck he's talking about "image quality"? Until we get 4k displays the quality differences are non-existent.
There have been big advances in LCD technology. 7 years ago I would not even have considered LCD, but today I'm hard pressed to justify the heat and power draw of plasmas since the LCDs have improved so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Why the fuck he's talking about "image quality"? Until we get 4k displays the quality differences are non-existent.
Resolution is far from the only thing that matters for image quality. Contrast, black levels, ghosting, viewing angle, color reproduction, and even input lag (for lip sync) can make a big difference. For an extreme example, compare LCD vs. plasma at the same resolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Until we get 4k content the quality differences are non-existent.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I already know that most of Hollywood has scary looking skin. Don't really need an extra boost in clarity.
Re: (Score:3)
Why replace perfectly fine 1080p HDTV?
Because Joe Consumer just discovered his neighbour has a fifty-inch TV, and his is only forty-inches.
Re: (Score:2)
So I decided not to bother and wait for 4k panels. I don't care much about content, because I'll be using it mostly f
my 3 year old Panny still kicking (Score:2)
not as good as my father in law's LG LED TV, but its mostly because his has a better CPU to decode the image
i have a 3d blu ray player and an apple TV connected to mine for all the smart TV crap. 3d blu ray players can be had for $99 at best buy with vudu, amazon, cinemanow, porn, pandora, tunein and lots of other services
I wish I could replace it (Score:2)
but it is a 36" Proton CRT with native 720p and 1080i. Lovely picture but it weighs around 250 lbs and wedged so thoroughly into the entertainment center that I might need to cut it out.
1 reason: weight (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's a lot cheaper to hire somebody to help carry the TV once in a while than it is to buy a whole new TV.
2005 for me. (Score:2)
Got myself a 50" 1080p DLP TV in 2005. I've replaced the bulb twice so far, and told my wife that the next time it needs replacing we'll give it to anyone that's willing to take it. (It runs a little warm and the fan makes it less than quiet for about a half hour after I turn it off. Also the newer TVs are likely much more energy efficient.)
The TV has good picture quality, but the HDMI ports don't work particularly well. Truthfully, I didn't try an HDMI source until about 2-3 years ago. It works fine wi
Re: (Score:2)
> HDMI ports don't work particularly well.
That won't change. It's a shit design.
Re: (Score:2)
DisplayPort?
I don't use my TV's features (Score:2)
I don't use my TV's features. I use my media players features through my TV. The media player has much more functionality and is upgradable with just software updates.
Standards haven't changed (Score:2)
Easy answer... NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
Five years ago I invested in a Samsung television. It's been great and I don't want to replace it. It has the features (120hz) and size (52") I want plus looks nice on the wall. I made sure to get LCD versus plasma to help keep electricity costs down. I held off on buying a DLP because I knew I would grow tired of the volume it would take up in the living room. Research showed that the LCD panel was from a Samsung/Sony plant in South Korea with units having a 3% failure rate versus 5% for its competition. Who looks for an excuse to replace their main television frequently? Not me. If you bought something with the intention of replacing or demoting it after a few years of ownership, by all means spend your money.
Steve
Re: (Score:3)
They can't afford a slightly more expensive option, but can afford relplacing it every 5 years?
Not if you have 120Hz+ w/LED backlight (Score:2)
HDMI 2.0 (Score:2)
Didn't we just have an article about how all the TV's will have a new HDMI standard with new features?
I'll wait for CEC to improve.
Out of Date Info (Score:2)
Re:Out of Date Info (Score:5, Informative)
Also those 4k discs you can buy are really only standard 1080p discs. They are "4k mastered", meaning they are encoded from a 4k source, but downscaled to 1080p, and are usually using a much higher bitrate than ordinary Blu-ray discs in order to preserve as much of the quality of the picture as possible, since they most likely will be used in those upscaling players. Upscaling magnifies encoding artefacts.
Those 4k mastered discs also play in normal Blu-ray players, since they are really only 1080p. At the moment they are probably the highest quality video source available for consumer purchase.
3D TV = Quad Stereo (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Genius, 'Quad' is back++. Dolby Surround.
Waiting on 4K (Score:2)
My first HDTV isn't. (Score:2)
My first flat panel is actually a monitor. No tuner. It made sense because, by 2007, it wasn't like anyone tuned TV directly on their displays. They hooked up to a cable/satellite box or HD Tivo. I've never missed having a tuner on that panel.
Unfortunately, after years of double-duty as a computer monitor and TV, it started to suffer from image persistence. I moved it to video-only duty and it mostly cleared up but now it has a slight, curved shadow around the top edge like the outline of a curved CRT.
!News for nerds (Score:2)
This is plainly news for the people who don't care to learn about display technologies, which granted, is clearly the majority. Watching this interview through that lens the content makes sense. But news for nerds, oh hell no!. It is fucking laughable how bad it is.
Bigger is better (Score:2)
I replaced my old 60" rear projection set with a newer 70" set last year.
It was a significant improvement to get a larger size and direct view. It also uses a lot less energy.
So I'd say if you are going up 10" in size or swapping some kind of rear projection technology for a direct view it's likely to give an appreciable improvement.
Otherwise I'd hold out for OLED.
9 years later, still won't trade my Pioneer Plasma (Score:5, Interesting)
Got what we paid for: Awesomeness and longevity.
I'm going to go knock on some wood now.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh.
Short answer: No (Score:2)
Replace my HDTV? (Score:5, Informative)
Christ, I havn't even replaced the CRT yet.
HDCP Compatibility (Score:2)
If you were lucky enough to by a big flat panel TV before they were HDCP compatible then you got totally screwed.
Time to upgrade our buggy whips? (Score:2)
my newer that 4y works perfectly well (Score:2)
Just because it is old, maybe 3 years, and newer ones are better doesn't mean it needs to be replaced.
I don't just get an "ohh shiny" new tv because it is newer.
When it breaks in maybe 5 years from now I might replace it.
No (Score:2)
I was a late adopter of hdtv, but then I realized that it can go a week or two between the times I watch TV.
Are there any new HDTVs with minimal input lag? (Score:2)
There are some new compelling features (Score:2)
I think the main attraction to newer sets is embedded support for common services such as netflix. It is an aesthetic choice that eliminates another box on your TV stand. (or the TV stand altogether if you're using a wall mount.)
Power consumption and viewing angles have all improved with the advent of better LCD technology, eliminating the need for power guzzling plasma displays, which turned out to be more of a stop gap than anything.
With the advent of chromecast, network enabled Blu Ray Players, roku e
Re: (Score:2)
bezels, not bevels. Low blood sugar, time for lunch!
When the one I've got dies (Score:3)
I kind of planned it that way. I just getting tired consuming so much crap cause I need another big fucking TV screen to see movies and shit for fuck sake. I love sounds and movies but I fucking hate advertisments inmyfuckingfaceallthefuckingtime telling me I need a new FUCKING SCREEN!!
There! I said it.
Still love my 52" DILA set (Score:2)
Sure, it's only 720p, but a $90-ish Roku will add most of the features an $800+ Smart set would have (except for the 1080p), and I'm still getting better black and contrast than the new thin LCD/LED sets.
I replaced my circa 2000 HDTV last year (Score:2)
No TV, just 37 inch 1080P monitor (Score:2)
I would really like to replace my Westinghouse 37W1, since the backlight is separating, but there's nothing I can find like it. It does not have a tuner, since I have no use for one, but it has a more-then-complete set of discrete inputs (2 HDMI, 2 component, S-Video, Composite, and SVGA), so my receiver can switch between my sources and the monitor just handles the output. It's like speakers (converts electricity into sound), but for images.
I hate my HDTV (Score:3)
I hate my HDTV. It is a Vizio and was purchased about three years ago. It's like a throwback to the 60's when I was a kid. Back then you turned on your TV, and then you had to wait awhile for it to warm up before you could see a picture. Changing channels required getting up from the chair and walking across the living room. Which, beyond being a pain in the ass, was time-consuming. Now I can have the same 1960s convenience with my HDTV. When you turn it on it takes at least 20 seconds to do -- what?, I don't know, boot up? Then another few seconds for sound. Except for those times when the sound won't come on for some reason, which means starting the whole process over again. Changing the channel is equally annoying. I have a remote, so I don't have to get up, but it takes just as long. It's probably five seconds between channel changes. And sometimes it skips a couple of channels. Occasionally, it seems to get mixed up about what to do, and just shuts itself off. I really miss my old analog television. HD looks nice, but it's not worth the frustration.
Obligatory XKCD (Score:5, Insightful)
http://xkcd.com/732/ [xkcd.com]
Incidentally, my LCD monitor from 2004 is still great for HD video.
Single-use? (Score:4, Insightful)
Single-use as in what, viewing pictures on a large medium suitable for multiple persons?
Cable TV might be going downhill, but televisions as a whole aren't going away. Yes, portable devices exist, but just as the walkman co-existed with the home-stereo (and the discman as well), so can the TV with portables.
For movies, broadcast, video games, or even as large computer monitors... televisions may change somewhat but aren't likely to go away any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, you'll be losing your near-distance vision sooner than you think, and then you'll enjoy a nice big screen across the room from you.
Re:TV? You mean, single-use device? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because I want the football players on my television every Thursday night, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday night to be near life size when I watch them. And not being so selfish, the rest of my family also wants to be able to see the same thing when they watch the same program.
Not a sports fan? Same thing applies for movie buffs.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a friend who decided the family didn't need a TV anymore since everyone was watching shows on tablets or laptops in their own rooms. He walked through the house one evening to discover that his wife and two children were independently watching the same show from netflix in 3 different locations in the house having all started at different times... So now the family doesn't even watch TV together and it uses up 3 times the bandwidth.
My family is similar except that we still occasionally gather aroun
Re: (Score:3)
TVs, and TV-viewing, are quite obsolete
If you mean broadcast TV, where a show is "on" at a particular time..I agree
If you mean that watching stuff on a phone, tablet or computer is going to take over..I disagree
My home theater has a large, high quality monitor and a very comfortable chair
It has one use, watching video entertainment whether from streaming, disk or DVR
I would never do computer stuff in my home theater or watch a movie on my computer
Re: (Score:2)
When you can watch anything you want, any time you want, anywhere you want, why would anyone spend money on a single-use device like a TV to conform to a very outdated form of media consumption?
My family watches movies and plays video games on the big screen. Sure we could have tablets and laptops and headphones and use those instead to watch what we want and play what we want... oh wait we do have those.
And we still use the big screen TV. Maybe we're more sociable than you and like to do things together a
Re: (Score:2)
To me this sounds like a question asking, "what are you going to do with your Walkman?" TVs, and TV-viewing, are quite obsolete. The device you watch anything on now is irrelevant. When you can watch anything you want, any time you want, anywhere you want, why would anyone spend money on a single-use device like a TV to conform to a very outdated form of media consumption?
Because I like a 60" screen across the room that 5 (or more) of us can watch comfortably to having each person isolated with headphones, or in a separate room holding a tablet or phone to their face.
Just because I *can* watch a movie on my phone in the bathroom or on the subway doesn't mean that I want to.
A TV is no more "single use" than a computer is since there are a lot of different devices I can hook up to it -- including a computer.
Re: (Score:2)
I connect my "TV" to a media PC and stream VLC/netflix content to big screen in my living room. Many people also have consoles connected to their screens. Cable TV might be dying, and I will be first one to dance on its overpriced commercial-filled grave, but big screen living room entertainment is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
stuff looks a lot better on a 40" or 50" TV than a tiny phone or tablet screen
i use my ipad and iphone to watch in the kitchen, as a secondary set if my wife is hogging the big one or on the train to work.
Yes, a single-use device. (Score:5, Insightful)
Give. Me. A. Break.
Because sometimes anything, any time, anywhere, isn't optimum.
Quality requires exclusivity. That's not an absolute rule, but pretty close.
You don't go around a race circuit fastest in a minivan, so if you like racing you should get a vehicle that does it better. It may be shit for all other uses but the quality of the exclusive experience makes it worth the investment.
Even if my girlfriend wanted to fuck me anywhere, any time, the quality of the experience would be enhanced by taking some time off and going to a nice, peaceful, private place where I can concentrate on her, exclusively.
Music can and is enjoyed anywhere, any time. But NOTHING compares to actually disconnecting from the wired world and sitting in a good concert hall, listening to an orchestra do what it does so well.
I could go on with a hundred more example. Just like all of them, TVs have a place. Yes, I can suck down media content anywhere, any time, but sometimes I actually like to FUCKING PAY ATTENTION to the movie on a big screen in a dark room with a superior sound system, sitting in a comfy chair with no interruptions.
What sort of distracted ass would ask "Why have a TV?" Is there nothing you think is worth doing well? Or is a half-assed look all you need?
People who ask this question would be just as happy with a poster of a Picasso thumbtacked to their wall as with the experience of seeing it in person. I feel sorry for them. No matter what generation they're from or what generation they feel entitled to insult, they need to learn to appreciate art...not just consume it willy-nilly, without thought, without quality but happy as a clam because they can accomplish such consumption while simultaneously washing clothes and updating Twitter.
You don't know what you're missing. Please, no matter what your age, grow up and figure it out.
Re:Yes, a single-use device. (Score:4, Funny)
Even if my girlfriend wanted to fuck me anywhere, any time, the quality of the experience would be enhanced by taking some time off and going to a nice, peaceful, private place where I can concentrate on her, exclusively.
You should have stuck with just the car analogy if you wanted /.ers to actually understand your metaphor.
Re: (Score:2)
Why I still go to the movies. Bigger is, in fact, better.
Re: (Score:2)
Like others have observed TV's aren't really single use devices. The various roles they fill of course can be done by a variety of other devices in some shape or form. Personally we have a TV so that we can watch things together as a family. Also my eye sight is getting worse as I age and so having a nice big screen makes for less eye fatigue. Watching short videos and such on phone and tablet size screens is bad enough, I can't imagine trying to watch an entire movie that way. We also do not subscrib to ca
Re: (Score:3)
It's a display. It's only limited by what you plug into it. If you don't have any imagination, then you will end up with a lame result.
If your old one is still working, there's probably no good reason to get rid of it and contribute to the volume of your local garbage dump.
Re: (Score:2)
even if i did its better watching media on a couch on a TV than sitting up in a chair
Re: (Score:2)
I had to reluctantly upgrade mine. As I got so many dead pixels that I couldn't watch anything, it was like a power hungry radio.
No more DLP for me.
Re: (Score:2)
My LCD has an entire column of the color subpixels screwed up (i think green is permanently off)
Re:even old/cheap tvs are great (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We have an "old" TV, given to us by someone that upgraded. I think it's HD resolution, but it doesn't do HDMI etc.
It's a plasma screen, and the watt-meter I have measures about 300-600W consumption depending on how bright the scene is -- it's usually about 400-500W. If I used it more than once a week I'd be more interested in upgrading it, but I don't.
If I used it as much as the woman next door uses hers, an upgrade to an LCD TV would pay for itself within a year in reduced electricity bills.
Re: (Score:2)
My first TV CRT I replaced because it made a high pitch whine that got very painful.
Then I got a DLP rear projection. That worked for about 5 years then it started to give me stuck pixels (White and black) A lot of them, in a normal distribution from the left center.
So now I am on an LCD. Hopefully LCD will last more then 5 years. I mean it is a TV you shouldn't need to swap them every few years.
Re: (Score:2)
What you said.
A transcription would be great, but a talking head spewing advice works just as well in print as in /.TV.
Right tool for the job, world. Try it.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate having to watch a 15 minute video for something I could skim-read in 30 seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
I lol'd =p
Re: (Score:2)
I bet it's a CRT.