Options
Curved screens?
Andy2
Posts: 11,949 Forum Member
✭✭
What's all this about curved TV screens? Samsung are pushing theirs as giving 'a wider viewing angle', but it doesn't stack up. If you are sitting off to one side, the opposite side of the screen will be at a slightly more favourable angle, but the nearer side will be at a worse angle.
Surely a flat screen is the best?
Surely a flat screen is the best?
0
Comments
It must be the biggest (and most stupid) gimmick to date
I agree I saw one of these working the other day and was completely underwhelmed..
TV manufacturers like with other technological products have to come up with new ideas and they are running out of anything that will really enhance the viewers experience, with that over-used "wow factor".
Similar thing with ultra high definition TVs, if the programmes are crap them it can be in any resolution and it will still be crap. We have yet to see HD at its best due to broadcasting definition restrictions by cramming too many programmes in the space available on the muxes.
Useless if you have the family spread around the room.
I'm all for change but this curved screen TV is utterly pointless.
So these curly tellies are designed for one viewer at a time, and he has to sit at the centre of the radius? Wow, a massive leap in technology... backwards!
Indeed, this might end up being known as the Archimedes phone
There was a reason over a decade ago now why even CRT screens went flat. It reduced reflection and distortion.
Seen a review on CNET living with one of these new curved TV's. Lines are distorted on things like tennis and football - even from the central seating position.
They are BS-ing people of immersion etc - IMAX is curved because the screen is as tall as a house ! and you need that benefit.
They dont provide immersion and the reviewer said he quickly forgot it was curved until the distortions popped up.
I hope nobody buys into this - 3D was a bad enough gimmick.
Just give me a awesome picture and design. That is all.
Another selling point was that people on the edge of the viewing field get a better picture, which definitely must be counter-intuitive if true. As I recall, light travels in straight lines, so unless there are two seating positions, i.e. one at the convergence point, and another ‘back-row’ position further away for divergent viewing, how can a curved screen be better than a flat one for viewing angles?
Have an image of Homer Simpson sat bang in front of the TV at the convergent point watching with one eye closed, as the rest of the family shout for him to: GET OUT OF THE WAY!
Well, if you're sitting just less than side on to an LCD flat screen, the picture you will see will lack contrast.
But sitting at the same position with a curved screen TV, the bit of picture that you can see is angled more towards you, so won't have lost contrast.
So in that sense the viewing angles are better.
Obviously, if you are sitting exactly side on to a flat screen or a curved screen, then you won't see any picture, as the bit curved on your side will obscure the bit on the other side curved towards you. And I would think that would happen at the same spot,whether the screen was flat or curved.
That only works for a viewer ideally located at the centre point of the screen radius. If you move further away on axis then the screen edges will have a more acute angle than a flat screen, so will be worse than a flat screen. .
If you then move left to right then one side of the screen will be more directly viewed but the other will be worse.
Out of interest when Which tested this TV they couldn't see any advantages, only disadvantages.
You must have watched some crappy LCD's
Sony ones have generally had extremely wide viewing angles - but a VERY old 4:3 Sharp one I had was absolutely abysmal, but they all were from back then.
Agreed, my Panny also has a very wide viewing angle with little loss of contrast, whereas I had a cheap Luxor TV in my office, till it broke, that had a terribly poor viewing angle.
I have found that many cheap TVs give dreadful inferior pictures, they maybe cheap but it shows.
I've got a Panasonic one (4:3 portable) that I use for checking security cameras etc. it's absolutely abysmal vertically
But things have come on a lot since 4:3
What about the half that is angled away from you?
Spectacular
Even BBC in HD looks great, ITV is ok too
Be prepared for someone to come along and tell you that there is something wrong with your eyesight or that you are just imagining the improvement etc etc....;-)
Enjoy.
Presumably you mean normal BluRays?, just authored from a 4K source - as far as I'm aware there aren't any 4K discs yet, nor anything that could play them (or even an agreed standard).
It would only be of interest if you hold the view that physical media will continue under the onslaught of streamed media. There may not be enough profit in discs to make the development worthwhile in the future. Sony are already being shady about the future development of BluRay.
You can't see that.
http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/178166-1tb-per-disc-sony-and-panasonic-team-up-on-next-gen-blu-ray