Options
Does anyone actually want a curved TV?
446.09375
Posts: 961 Forum Member
✭✭
Looks like a silly gimmick to me, these new curved screens.
Art that you hang on walls has never needed to curve.
Sensors in video cameras are flat and rectangular.
We're all used to rectangular screens, and curves are soOOOoo 1950s CRT
(even if those curved the other way)
Can they not see the obvious truth : if you're sat close enough for the curve to make any difference then you're too close and the digital compression artifacts will be too visible and annoying. By the time you're sat far enough away that the TV looks anything like reality because the pixels are no longer distinct, then a curve will make no practical difference whatsoever except for making it look silly mounted on a wall.
Anything I've missed?
Art that you hang on walls has never needed to curve.
Sensors in video cameras are flat and rectangular.
We're all used to rectangular screens, and curves are soOOOoo 1950s CRT
(even if those curved the other way)Can they not see the obvious truth : if you're sat close enough for the curve to make any difference then you're too close and the digital compression artifacts will be too visible and annoying. By the time you're sat far enough away that the TV looks anything like reality because the pixels are no longer distinct, then a curve will make no practical difference whatsoever except for making it look silly mounted on a wall.
Anything I've missed?
0
Comments
Yes, that for 4K you NEED to view from that close to get the benefit
Although I agree it's a stupid idea, and just a gimmick - but certainly not for imaginary artifacts.
IMAX have curved screens, so if you are wanting to create something similar in your room then a large curved screen will do exactly that, being 4k you will be able to close enough to get a excellent field of view.
Phillips gave us 21.9 displays where many could not see the point, now two other manufactures have decided to go this route, both showcasing their 105" curved 4k 21.9 displays.
No matter how gimmicky some technology seems, there's always someone out there that will buy it, though texting your washing machine and hoover seems a bit ott.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/7/5285316/lg-homechat-instant-message-control-smart-appliances-through-line
Nigel I wish you would stop making statements like this.
There's absolutely no evidence that you need to sit with your face pressed virtually to the screen to gain the benefit of 4K. In fact there are many videos on Youtube that suggest otherwise where the picture improvement can be seen from a camera 10 feet back and videoing in HD!
There is some argument as to whether or not you can see extra detail or whether or not its just perceived through extra sharpness. Does it really matter though if the picture looks better as to what is the cause? It's the result that matters.
The benefits of increased sharpness, colour range and contrast can be seen from distance and they are the main benefits from 4K.
As for curved screens, I'm not convinced. Most people want a tv that takes up as little room space as possible and is as thin as possible so why would you want a tv that sticks out into the room by several inches at the end? Its going to take up space and be prone to being caught by people walking past.
I also wonder on the immersion factor. I can see it working if you're sat in front of the screen, but what about people out to the side? Surely their view will be distorted with the far side clearer and the near side more obscured due to the increased angle.
Please explain what you mean by "extra sharpness".
I certainly wouldn't buy one. It would feel completely weird looking at a curved screen. I prefer looking at a completely flat screen. I'd prefer a higher resolution than a curved screen. I honestly can't see how a curved screen would be useful.
I can't understand why they say it. They go on about the 'newspaper test' like it's concrete proof of what they're saying. Trying to read small text in a newspaper from a distance of about 7 feet is completely different to seeing the increased detail on the higher resolution screen. Yes, you might not be able to see the individual pixels, but you will be able to see the obvious difference in detail with the much higher resolution.
I agree, and well put. The only time I have ever thought about a curved screen is when I was writing a speculative essay about a new way of making and showing films. If anyone is interested, it's at www. virtual-space. org.uk (leave the spaces out).
Samsung said of their curved OLED TV they'll be releasing a flat version of this because I'm pretty sure they know anyone spending on this wants a perfectly flat screen.
But it's served a purpose: it's getting lots of press and discussions on forums.
I also wish you would stop sprouting such nonsense, 4K (and HD) is almost entirely about resolution - for which the screen size/viewing distance means you have to be a LOT closer to get decent benefit from it.
You might be happy to pay huge sums of money to watch SD only resolution on your 4K TV - and while you might get a minor improvement at that distance it's more to do with the increased bandwidth used then the fact it's HD or 4K. Using the same resolution to transmit SD pictures would probably give just as good results if viewed from SD distances.
I don't see how you can claim there's 'virtually no evidence'
Just open your eyes and move to where you can see your HD pictures - Oh look, there's detail in the picture
Yeah, lets all sit at a stupid distance just so we can see the individual pixels. You'll be able to see the detail from about 7 feet once 4K content on media becomes available.
Colour-range and contrast are totally independent from resolution; 4K is no better than 1080p for them.
Sharpness is obviously improved by higher resolution provided your eyesight is good enough to resolve it. Most people don't want a large enough screen in their living room to be able to see any benefit at all from the higher resolution of a 4K TV.
Lets look at this sensibly eh?. In Korea there are both flat and curved OLED TV's. The production facilities don't yet allow for mass production for worldwide distribution. So LG and Samsung are creating the buzz around OLED with these curved screens that will only be bought by wealthy early adopters.
Flat OLEDs will arrive eventually, when someone has the balls to build a very large manufacturing facility. This won't happen unless they are sure of selling the technology at the right price in the right numbers..
So you don't have to like the curved screen, you will probably never be in a position to buy one even if you wanted one.
like orbital said above ,,,,,,,,, its because they can
there will be bendable/self positioning screens next , so you can view em as flat or as curved as you want.
not for me though
There are already bendable screens......
http://cnettv.cnet.com/samsung-bendable-tv-ces-2014/9742-1_53-50161365.html
To give the URL: http://www.virtual-space.org.uk
HD is more than resolution, it's about increased colour depth, higher contrast, more natural colours, better blacks on which to build the rest of the picture, as well as higher resolution. And this repeated suggestion that it's necessary to sit close to the screen to see the extra detail - it's nonsense. I can lounge in the armchair at the other end of the room and instantly spot the the mrs has gone for the SD version of a channel, be it BBC, C4 or whatever. There's a clarity and a sparkle to an HD picture that SD just doesn't have. It's a shame that difference is much less than it used to be on virtually all channels but that's another argument - HD offers benefits at more than just very close viewing distances. Accept it, and forget this silly newspaper test that you seem to treat as the one single gospel test for HD.
All those are secondary and minor - they could increase those and provide the same minor improvements with SD.
HD is almost entirely about resolution, and the simple laws of physics show you HAVE to view from closer in order to be able to see full benefit.
You might not like the newspaper test, but it's simple and free - and uses the exact same principles as driving tests and eye tests.
If YOU are happy with only been able to see SD resolution due to your excessive viewing distance, that's your choice - but that's not how HD is supposed to be viewed (and is how the BBC were able to cripple the bandwidth without numerous people here didn't even noticing - and the initial crippling was drastic and dire).
This one is curved the other way around. I think the "reasoning" like in cinema is to have the same distance to the surface of the whole screen horizontally. If it makes any difference with such a relatively small screen I am not sure. Maybe if you sit at optimal distance, i.e., your nose almost touching the screen
I suspect very few of us HAVE to change TV's - so they need to give us a reason to, or a desire to.
Hence, 3d, 4K, smart TV, curved screens
eg. The split screen gaming possibility with 3D TVs is probably a good enough reason to change to £d for some users. It really is a simple and clever idea.
I bought a cheap 46in 3D Samsung this year, for just over £400 this year. Not smart-TV but we have plenty viewing options without that - and it will be a good few years before we need to change again.
Amazing how quickly you get used to big screens. 46" hardly seems big, especially as it is actually a smaller screen than our previous 42"
Bit of a typo there
Presumably you meant a smaller SET, the screen is obviously larger (but will have a much smaller surround).