LCD vs CRT ranting

[redpoint5]

Enjoying my cheapo 75" LCD. It has been on sale as low as $400 delivered. No idea how there is any profit margin built into that when they send 2 guys in a large panel truck to deliver 30 minutes away, and then deal with a certain percentage of people that return them for one reason or another. TVs must cost $100 to manufacture.

[rmay635703]

70” $329 a few weeks back

My guess is you will see lots of super clearances because of ATSC 3 Sets obsoleting all the standard sets

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

70” $329 a few weeks back

My guess is you will see lots of super clearances because of ATSC 3 Sets obsoleting all the standard sets

I've enjoyed the quality of the current gen ATSC and find it vastly superior to paid cable or satellite. Don't know why paying for TV delivers worse quality. Anyhow, I'm looking forward to the UHD version of OTA TV.

I wouldn't mind picking up another cheap set when they clearance them off to make room for ATSC 3, because I don't watch broadcast TV in real time anyhow. For my parents, I go with Tivo since that's the best OTA DVR on the market as far as ease of use, quality, and features. I'd just get a cheapo USB tuner and record to either a PC or NAS. I've got a Plex lifetime pass.

[All Darc]

Funny how some quite cheper brands, compared to Samsung, looks quite "less worse" than ther garbage image of the Samsung 4K HDR here.
Even so they have too much motion blur, and some of it it's from the HD video cameras of today. Anywing... I will never accept such lie, with so many downsides .
Image change and it get blur, image change and it get more artifacts, image change and textures vanish aways.

Expensive garbage... Cheap garbage... For me it's all garbage anyway.

[freebeard]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC_3.0

ATSC 3.0 is a major version of the ATSC standards for television broadcasting created by the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC).[1] ATSC 3.0 comprises around 20 standards covering different aspects of the system and in total will have over 1,000 pages of documentation.[2]

The standards are designed to offer support for newer technologies, including HEVC for video channels of up to 2160p 4K resolution at 120 frames per second, wide color gamut, high dynamic range, Dolby AC-4 and MPEG-H 3D Audio, datacasting capabilities, and more robust mobile television support.[1][3] The capabilities have also been foreseen as a way to enable targeted advertising and finer public alerting.

The totalitarian dream has always been a television that watches back.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by freebeard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC_3.0


The totalitarian dream has always been a television that watches back.

Locate the sensor and provide a continuous highly offensive feed

Gotta make it as entertaining for the onlookers as possible

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Funny how some quite cheper brands, compared to Samsung, looks quite "less worse" than ther garbage image of the Samsung 4K HDR here.
Even so they have too much motion blur, and some of it it's from the HD video cameras of today. Anywing... I will never accept such lie, with so many downsides .
Image change and it get blur, image change and it get more artifacts, image change and textures vanish aways.

The plasma had better picture quality, but this TV is bigger, and it's not much worse picture quality wise. I prefer the larger image over the marginally better picture quality. I don't watch much sports anyhow. It's mostly documentaries and streaming shows like The Mandalorian.

I'm sure the technology will get better. Perhaps OLED prices will approach LCD prices in 5 years. High end LCD is starting to challenge OLED, and in some aspects such as brightness and power efficiency, exceed it.

My question about how LCD is more efficient than OLED still hasn't been answered. LCD produces a bright white light and blocks (filters) out the colors not necessary for the image, while OLED only produces the light needed to produce the image, with none being wasted by filtering.

As a tangent subject, I don't know why huge viewing angles are desirable. Why are we sending light everywhere in the room? Are people really watching TV 80 degrees off center (from the side)? I'd be happy with solid light distribution out to about 45 degrees from center on both sides.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

Locate the sensor and provide a continuous highly offensive feed

((metadata))

[All Darc]

The LED used as backlight light sources on your TV are more efficient than the OLED used in each pixels of your OLED TV. OLED as long as I know uses organic dyes or something like that.
OLED have the "O" before "LED" because it's "O" of organic.

I also don't need 180 degree of view, but the problem of such garbages like LCD. is that even models with 185 angle view creates distortion at even 25 degree angle.
I most cases I can see distortion if I move my nose a just inch to the sides. And even at zero degree (90 degree front straight) I can see distortion as the sides looks less bright than the center of screen, unles you move 6 meters away from screen.
I told posts ago, that a new technology for LED TV arrives (Nano Cell), they changed the classification and started to talk about angle without distortion. They did it because they need now just to say the the previous product was bad. And it's funny their ridicule approach of try to use sharppening filters just during medium and high motion scenes, to try to conceal the motion bur created by this garbage technology. Some advanced models tris to push about 4 effect or so, using seletive adjusts to scenes. Pathetic.

And don't forget the LCD curse of clipped whites and crushed shadows !!! The HD and Blu-Ray video encoders, compression algoritims, was designed considering this sh...t, since they are designed to allow much artefacts near highlights and shaddows, since they kew people would watch movies with the LCD TVs killing details in highlights and shadows, since the TV sets to avoit such look makes the image lifeless and fadded.
DVD encoding wasn't this way, so bad a-ss with dynamic range.

I also prefer a mono sound than a 5,1 or 7,1, if the mono it's in a excellent speaker and the 5,1 & 7,1 it's in s bad speakers. I like sonic quality over 3D sound.
For example, I have a stereo sound from a digital piano with a not bad speaker (but nothing great). Someone asked if I would like to get a Creative Labs PC Kit with 5.1 sound, and I refused (it would be a present or so) cause the Creative Labs kit have very crap sonic quality, and a anoying bass sound.

I hate trash. And I had told that person before, more than one time, I hated Creative Labs kits, that it sounded complete garbage to me, disgusting. People never listen to me...
This same person would come again trying to push me just the bass speaker of the garbage Creative Labs 5,1 kit. It's like the more I tell that a hate a given thing, the more this personh tries to push such things. It drives me angry!!!

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The plasma had better picture quality, but this TV is bigger, and it's not much worse picture quality wise. I prefer the larger image over the marginally better picture quality. I don't watch much sports anyhow. It's mostly documentaries and streaming shows like The Mandalorian.

I'm sure the technology will get better. Perhaps OLED prices will approach LCD prices in 5 years. High end LCD is starting to challenge OLED, and in some aspects such as brightness and power efficiency, exceed it.

My question about how LCD is more efficient than OLED still hasn't been answered. LCD produces a bright white light and blocks (filters) out the colors not necessary for the image, while OLED only produces the light needed to produce the image, with none being wasted by filtering.

As a tangent subject, I don't know why huge viewing angles are desirable. Why are we sending light everywhere in the room? Are people really watching TV 80 degrees off center (from the side)? I'd be happy with solid light distribution out to about 45 degrees from center on both sides.

[All Darc]

Another thing, the newer encoding algorithms that are coming will make things worse !!!!!!!

Better encoding algorithm use better analize to compare elements on the scene, manage better to get what thing it's repetitive and should be repeated or repeated in a sligh different position. But the better a algorithm became for repetivie thing, the worse it became for scenes with fast changes and a lot of sucessive changes, if the algorithm allows to reduce the bitrate.

That what happened with DVD from Blu-Ray and HD TV. The encoding used on DVD wasn't capable as much to get the redundant information as the ones used in Blu-Ray, and so they need good bitrate to get quality image for scenes with considerable motion.
When encoders for Blu-Ray arrive, they were better to get redundant information to process, but as they reduse the overal image bitrate needed, the bitrate for scenes with a lot of motion became not ideal.
HD broadcast have a steady bitrate, and not a variable bitrate for each scene like DVD and Blu-ray. So if they low the overal bitrate, imagining the new encoding algorithm it's great in low motion scenes, it will became poor for scenes with high motion.

When the new encoding algorithm arrive the TV Stations will desire to cut cost to get more money, and so they will add more channels to the same space they have. So the images may keep the actual quality for the scenes with very low to medium motion, but will lost quality for scenes with high motion.