TVs and things

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
12,874
Location
USA
#82
Any problems with newer BR discs not working in the older BR player? (due to DRM/key changes over time)
I haven't noticed this happen but it's certainly possible it might. It has been a while since I've purchased a new Bluray disc.
 

Chewy509

Wotty wot wot.
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
2,955
Location
Gold Coast Hinterland, Australia
#83
For those with Sony TVs/BR players, here is the official list of devices to lose YouTube on 20-Apr... https://esupport.sony.com/US/p/news-item.pl?news_id=487

Panasonic hasn't issued a list yet... And Google themselves have said that earlier generation GoogleTV devices (honeycomb or ICS based devices) will lose support as well!

As for Google, it's something I've come to expect, as all their services are essentially in the Perpetual Beta cycle and will die at any whim... About the only services I see Google keeping long term are:
1. Ads
2. Search
3. Any core technology integrated with Android that makes them money. (Play Store, GMail (via ads and intelligence gathering), G+).

The rest, you're along for the ride!
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,302
Location
Monterey, CA
#84
It is safe to assume that full functionality on Google services will always be available on a PC. PCs aren't that much more than an STB. The pain of dealing with an STB is not worth it.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,329
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
#85
There's a big difference between devices that have limited functionality and those that are actively being developed. I do think Windows (and specifically Windows 8) makes a better media center, but Chromecast, Roku and FireTV are pretty great for some definition of the word.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
12,874
Location
USA
#87
I'll be interested to see how well the new model does in reviews. My Samsung plasma TV is starting to show more quality issues even after I had fixed the capacitor which makes me think it may have limited life left. If these Vizio review fairly well I may look into getting one.
 

mubs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Nov 22, 2002
Messages
4,908
Location
Somewhere in time.
#88
Our trusty, rusty, 10+ year old LG CRT TV is slowly giving up the ghost. It has cold start issues. It's the power supply, and I'm told it's not available.

Considering there's little to no 4k content here, I'm inclined to just buy an HD (1920 x 1080, just so there's no mis-communication on my part) TV instead of 4k or higher resolution TV. I'm pretty sure the new-fangled stuff have built-in obsolescence timers and no point dumping so much money into a transient thing which we don't use heavily anyway.

The real question is, Smart TV or not? I can't see the value of YouTube on the TV. Netflix, perhaps, but we're not huge TV/movie buffs, as already said. Any compelling arguments to go Smart?

We've had good experience with LG products' quality and after warranty service, so inclined to go with them. Looking at a screen size between 40 and 43".

I'm all ears for advice pertaining to our TV replacement.

Thanks.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
3,679
Location
Flushing, New York
#89
Honestly, at this point there's so little difference in prices between 1080p and 2160p that it makes little sense not to go with 2160p even if you have little or no available 4K content. For example, this LG 43" 1080p TV goes for $347 while this 43" 2160p one goes for $497. Note that the 2160p TV is a smart TV. If you want a smart 1080p TV that makes the price difference even less. For example, this 1080p LG Smart TV is $397.

If you look at other brands, you can get a 4K Smart TV in your screen size range for as little as $379.

Yes, 4K still costs more but we're not talking many hundreds of dollars more like one or two years ago. In many cases the price difference is under $100 and you're future-proofing yourself. I advise anyone looking for a TV these days to get 4K and LED backlight. I'm personally holding out for OLED for both a new TV and a monitor but I have no immediate need of a replacement for either. I can wait until the price of OLED drops to "normal" levels. If that were not the case, I'd be looking at 4K LED TVs/monitors.

On another note, the prices even for 4K are dirt cheap compared to when we bought our TVs. My dad paid something like $1200 for a 720p 30" TV in 2005 and that was considered a good price then. His old set finally gave up the ghost and he wanted something better. Mom bought a 42" 1080p TV in 2006 for a bit over $1000 on sale. Prices of 4K TVs nowadays are probably less than what you paid for your CRT in real dollars, even less in adjusted dollars. I recall CRT TVs in large sizes going for north of $500 at the time anything HD was $1000 or over. This was maybe 10 years ago. The fact you can get a 4K TV for under $500 these days, which is like ~$400 a decade ago, is nothing short of amazing.
 

Chewy509

Wotty wot wot.
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
2,955
Location
Gold Coast Hinterland, Australia
#90
My 2cents...

Smart or Not... Definitely not. As a lot of manufacturers are basing the Smart side of things on Android, you're essentially running a huge tablet as your main TV... And there is a growing amount of malware targeting Smart TV installations...

https://it.slashdot.org/story/16/12...e-infects-lg-smart-tv-company-refuses-to-help

While the above is about LG, I've heard very similar stories about all brands... so for me, I've rather a dumb display and use Chromecast for the Smarts... (swap Chromecast with other media device as desired). Also, you'll find a lot of your Smart functions over time will become useless as the services you connect to get upgraded, and your TV doesn't... (Has happened to me personally with our main TV, and I think Doug has mentioned he's had similar issues with his TV as well in the past).

One trend I've noticed, at least with the models available locally, is that a lot of TVs at the lower price points are only coming with 2 HDMI inputs, so if you have a BR Player, a Chromecast and a WiiU/PS4/XBox you quickly find yourself out of ports...

As for FullHD (1080p) or 4K, I don't think it really matters a lot as pricing is similar. I would look at 4K as a nice to have, rather than a must, but as jtr mentions, if the pricing isn't that much more to step up to a 4K display, then why not? (I wold pay very careful attention to the type of panel and backlight being used though).
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,251
Location
Michigan
#91
I personally wouldn't pay extra for a smart TV. Having said that, pretty much any TV that has the sorts of features I want is going to be smart. My current TV is a smart TV. However, the TV has no internet connection and I don't use any of the smart features. As far as UHD or not, the 1080p TV is a dying breed. Unless you're buying the most basic entry level model you're going to end up with a UHD TV. Don't believe that they're remotely future proof. They're not. The feature set is still very much in flux.

Lastly, LG's LCD TVs generally use IPS panels, which have nice viewing angles, but have poor contrast when you're sitting directly in front of them compared to sets with VA panels. If you watch in the dark or in dim lighting you will notice the glowing blacks much more on an IPS panel than a VA one.
 

CougTek

Serial computer killer
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
8,692
Location
Québec, Québec
#92
My 2cents...

Smart or Not... Definitely not. As a lot of manufacturers are basing the Smart side of things on Android, you're essentially running a huge tablet as your main TV... And there is a growing amount of malware targeting Smart TV installations...

https://it.slashdot.org/story/16/12...e-infects-lg-smart-tv-company-refuses-to-help
My first thought when I read Mubs' post regarding SmartTV was also to flag the glaring security issues of those devices. Remember the massive DDoS attack that disrupted the internet on good parts of U.S.A last Fall? It was a orchestrated with a network of DVR players and similar devices, but it could just as well been done with a network of SmartTVs. Those devices where features are quickly programmed and security is an after-thought, almost never updated and probably never checked for their multiple vulnerabilities.

Plus, some SmartTVs have been cought spying on their owners (Vizio, IIRC). You don't want to finance or own this shit.
 

mubs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Nov 22, 2002
Messages
4,908
Location
Somewhere in time.
#93
Honestly, at this point there's so little difference in prices between 1080p and 2160p ...
The price delta here is not insignificant, jtr. It'll only make sense from a future-proofing point of view, and we all know how that will go. Their whole idea is to have you spend every couple of years. Still I'll check into the 4k stuff. The SUHD stuff is way too much.

My 2cents...

Smart or Not... Definitely not. As a lot of manufacturers are basing the Smart side of things on Android, you're essentially running a huge tablet as your main TV... And there is a growing amount of malware targeting Smart TV installations...
Pretty much my own line of thinking, Chewy, and I'm glad I have confirmation from you that I was on the right track!

I personally wouldn't pay extra for a smart TV.

Lastly, LG's LCD TVs generally use IPS panels, which have nice viewing angles, but have poor contrast when you're sitting directly in front of them compared to sets with VA panels. If you watch in the dark or in dim lighting you will notice the glowing blacks much more on an IPS panel than a VA one.
Thanks SD. Only dumb TVs will be considered! Reg. IPS vs VA, the eternal dilemma. Contrast or viewing angle. I'll re-check some Panasonic models that come with VA panels to see if they mention viewing angles. The problem is manufacturers really play fast and loose with the specs, mentioning some on some models, and others on other models. For instance, even for pure IPS panel models, when they mention viewing angle for 80% of them but don't for the other 20%, you're left wondering why.

My first thought when I read Mubs' post regarding SmartTV was also to flag the glaring security issues of those devices. Remember the massive DDoS attack that disrupted the internet on good parts of U.S.A last Fall? It was a orchestrated with a network of DVR players and similar devices, but it could just as well been done with a network of SmartTVs. Those devices where features are quickly programmed and security is an after-thought, almost never updated and probably never checked for their multiple vulnerabilities.

Plus, some SmartTVs have been cought spying on their owners (Vizio, IIRC). You don't want to finance or own this shit.
Amen & Amen, Coug. I'm especially paranoid of being spied upon. Thanks for pointing that out.
 

Striker

Learning Storage Performance
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
269
#94
I wouldn't completely rule out smart TVs. If you see a good deal and it has every other feature you're after, get the TV and don't give it access to the internet.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,251
Location
Michigan
#95
Thanks SD. Only dumb TVs will be considered!
That's not exactly what I said. I wouldn't pay extra to get smart features (if given the choice). However, in the US you're not given a choice. To get other features I wouldn't buy a TV without, you're forced to buy a smart TV. There's nothing wrong with that. Just don't allow it access to the internet.
 

Howell

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN
#97
One trend I've noticed, at least with the models available locally, is that a lot of TVs at the lower price points are only coming with 2 HDMI inputs, so if you have a BR Player, a Chromecast and a WiiU/PS4/XBox you quickly find yourself out of ports...
Is that something that can be fixed with another piece of hardware. HDMI switch if such a thing exists? What would be the downside?
 

Chewy509

Wotty wot wot.
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
2,955
Location
Gold Coast Hinterland, Australia
#98

mubs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Nov 22, 2002
Messages
4,908
Location
Somewhere in time.
#99
Thanks all, guys, I already figured that better featured / higher-end TVs are Smart TVs, and I may end up buying one of those and not using the Smart features. Only problem is they also cost a lot more and I'll be paying for features I won't use to get features I want. Choices and decisions!
 

mubs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Nov 22, 2002
Messages
4,908
Location
Somewhere in time.
I know most of you think online reviews are crap (and they mostly are), but I run through them to get an idea of the product & service.

It seems every manufacturer is making TVs that last 2-3 years at best. The dissing is uniform: LG, Samsung, Sony, Panasonic, etc. Everything seems to fail - panel, motherboard, HDMI ports.

I do intend to get as much extended warranty as I can, but I'm not sure it'll help much. Looks like i have to budget a replacement every 3 years. If that's true, why pay top dollar, perhaps I should get the cheapest one that fulfills the basic criteria.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
12,874
Location
USA
I agree with others that I wouldn't normally pay extra for a TV with smart features. I can certainly appreciate your feelings on the TV market and the reviews. There are so many TVs available these days from such a huge spectrum of prices that it makes it tough to decide. I've been tempted to replace my aging plasma that offers worse picture quality as time goes on but I'm holding out hoping things just improve and get cheaper.

One TV brand I've seen and considered as a way to tide me over was something from TCL. Several of their models come with built-in Roku as their menu and smart feature set. They work pretty well and even for a few hundred I feel like the picture quality is already better than my aging plasma. I wouldn't be surprised it if only lasted 3-5 years given the price but with that said even my expensive TV has only made it 10 years with two repairs. They aren't really built to last.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
14,936
Location
USA
I agree with others that I wouldn't normally pay extra for a TV with smart features. I can certainly appreciate your feelings on the TV market and the reviews. There are so many TVs available these days from such a huge spectrum of prices that it makes it tough to decide. I've been tempted to replace my aging plasma that offers worse picture quality as time goes on but I'm holding out hoping things just improve and get cheaper.

One TV brand I've seen and considered as a way to tide me over was something from TCL. Several of their models come with built-in Roku as their menu and smart feature set. They work pretty well and even for a few hundred I feel like the picture quality is already better than my aging plasma. I wouldn't be surprised it if only lasted 3-5 years given the price but with that said even my expensive TV has only made it 10 years with two repairs. They aren't really built to last.
Even my latest TV has some internet connectivity, but I'd never use it.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,251
Location
Michigan
There's always the good possibility that this fix doesn't last more than a week. :-D It did turn back on this morning though. Fixed day +1 and counting.
How is your capacitor fix holding up?

:cursin: I'm in the process of trying to mitigate some burn-in on my Samsung F8500 plasma. I've been very careful with the TV (or so I thought). When it was brand new I put 200+ hours of nothing but full screen RGBW fades before watching any programming on it trying to age the phosphors some. Despite that and a general avoidance of watching things with static logos for long durations, the logo from the local NBC station is faintly visible as a slightly darker area on a full white screen. Apparently this is from watching the local news at 11pm a few times a week. I didn't watch the 11PM news every day, and rarely watched for the entire 35 minutes. The ratio of 11pm news to other viewing couldn't have been more than 10-15% on any given day. I haven't watched any local news on the station in probably the past 6-9 months after I first noticed the issue. Yet, it is faintly visible and hasn't dissipated or faded. It takes a few seconds on a full screen white screen for me to see it. I don't think the average person would notice it unless I sent them looking for it and gave them some time, but it bothers me because I know it's there and I can't help but go looking for it.

They had two versions of the logo they would cycle between:





Because I have transport file recordings of the station and can extract still images from the stream that are pixel perfect I had been thinking of creating an inverse image to try to add some wear to the other pixels to offset the burn-in for a while. I got inspired today and created these two inverse images (from screen captures) as the basis of my removal scheme:




They're not full screen white because of the ABL in the TV. A full screen white image is quite a bit dimmer than a small area (to reduce power consumption), so it doesn't hit the RGB phosphors as hard. I created a 1080p60 video with the following image sequence:
Full screen black - 5 seconds
WDIV 4 inverse - 60 seconds
WDIV 4 inverse Gaussian blur r=0.3 - 10 seconds
WDIV 4 inverse Gaussian blur r=0.5 - 10 seconds
Full screen white - 5 seconds
Full screen black - 5 seconds
LOCAL 4 inverse - 60 seconds
LOCAL 4 inverse Gaussian blur r=0.3 - 10 seconds
LOCAL 4 inverse Gaussian blur r=0.5 - 10 seconds
Full screen white - 5 seconds

Now I've got the video playing back in an endless looping on the TV. I've got no idea if this will really work or how long it might take. In theory it should if it is done perfectly, but I have some concern that I could end up with a visible circular blob given my inverse images. FWIW, the gradient fades do look better in the full 1920x1080 versions of the images. Also, if the inverse image is misaligned slightly I could add further phosphor wear to part of the existing burn-in creating an even darker thin edge on one side. If there's a slight gap or overlap between the two I could end up with either a light or dark halo. I'm hoping the two slightly blurred versions of each pattern will help mitigate that as well as minimizing image retention buildup. Right now my plan is frequent progress checks every few hours to make sure I'm not making things worse before I let it run for long periods unattended.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
12,874
Location
USA
The capacitor fix itself is holding up fine for the job it was intended to correct but the TV is failing in other ways, mainly in that I'm seeing a lot more green snowy effect at the top of the screen. I decided to buy an inexpensive TV to tide me over for now until there are more TV options that interest me once things settle down with standards for HDR, etc. I got a TCL 55" 55US5800 4K UHD on sale for $360 from Target a week ago. The TV works fine and does the job but it's a bit different getting used to it after having a Plasma.

I'm surprised with the burn-in issues you've had with your TV. I admit I've not tried to investigate if I've had any burn-in with my Samsung plasma so it's possible I have some but I don't notice it. I kind of gave up caring about burn-in issues once the visual quality began to drop and the green snow started taking over the top of the screen. Good luck with your plan to correct the logo issue. Hopefully it works.
 

snowhiker

Wannabe Storage Freak
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
1,451
^^^^^
Sorry to hear that your Sammy is sick. But is seems you are taking some serious actions to correct the problem. Hopefully your F8500 will hold out long enough until the OLED 4K, HDMI 2.1, HDR, etc TV standards appear and you can upgrade once again.

Can you post a pic that shows the burn in caused by the static "Local 4" overlay? I'm kind of curious on how bad/not-bad it is.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,251
Location
Michigan
I ran the video for 2 hours, but the high contrast edge of the image caused some image retention which caused the "burned-in" logo to be much more visible after returning to normal content than normal. That image retention slowly faded with normal TV programming on the screen. After about 90 minutes of normal programming I ran the video for another 2 hours. Again, I had image retention after. Once it fades I'll see how visible the burn-in remains. I don't anticipate that just 4 hours of that video is going to solve the burn-in.

I think I need to modify the burn-in reversal video so that the panel doesn't have image retention afterward that needs a long time to dissipate. Until I have that figured out I'm currently not comfortable leaving that video running for hours on end when I'm not home.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,251
Location
Michigan
I think I need to modify the burn-in reversal video so that the panel doesn't have image retention afterward that needs a long time to dissipate. Until I have that figured out I'm currently not comfortable leaving that video running for hours on end when I'm not home.
I decided to use moving static with the concentrated inverse images above as a mask instead of stationary white / gray image as show in the pictures. I've got 60 seconds of static on each image with 30 seconds of area static (no image) between each. It seems much less prone to image retention, but it's probably a bit less effective at countering the burn-in problem too. I left it running on the TV today while I'm at work. I'll check on it when I get home.
 

snowhiker

Wannabe Storage Freak
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
1,451

I think that's a reasonable capture of what it looks like.
Thanks for the pic.

That screen shot is confusing because the "4" is in the middle of the screen and not in the lower right corner like in the news/hockey screen shots. But I can see now, barely, that you took the shot in a dark room and there is "extra" black on bottom and right side of screenshot. Maybe crop out the extra blacks to help Lunar see it. ;)

dbardwick's post helped.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
14,936
Location
USA
I see it with very tight levels. Cranked up I saw the American toggles on the wall but little else of sugnificance in the dark areas. The display looks like a computer not a TV so I was a bit confused.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,251
Location
Michigan
So I upgraded my TV in the past month, got a UHD BD player, and then a new receiver so I can setup Atmos in my great room (I haven't gotten the overhead speakers installed yet). The whole "4K" thing for the sake of extra resolution I think is largely a big bag of "meh" even with an extra 11" of screen size. However, the WCG (Wide Color Gamut) and HDR (High Dynamic Range) that come along for the ride are definitely not in that category. They're very :cool: Dolby Vision is quite nice too.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
12,874
Location
USA
What TV did you end up getting? In various discussions I've had with coworkers/friends/etc regarding 4K, the topic of how the eyes can't resolve the detail at normal viewing conditions is the major talking point. I typically try to refocus the discussion to point out exactly like you did which is some of the more-noticeable benefits will be the HDR and likely newer panel technology for improved colors.

I've try to be objective with the 4K versus 2K (1080P) and it's challenging not to let my own biases get in the way. I do feel like I can notice some of the detail benefits of 4K in nature-related content that isn't high-speed action. Things like wide panning shots of landscape with trees and mountain ridges. The little leaves in the trees and markings in the ridges of ricks pop a bit more and offer what appears to be sharper than in a 2K presentation of the same content. That said, if someone did a A/B demo I'd probably mess it up when guessing which was 4K vs 2K.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,251
Location
Michigan
What TV did you end up getting?
I got a Sony XBR-75Z9D. It finally dropped into the price range I was willing to pay.

In various discussions I've had with coworkers/friends/etc regarding 4K, the topic of how the eyes can't resolve the detail at normal viewing conditions is the major talking point. I typically try to refocus the discussion to point out exactly like you did which is some of the more-noticeable benefits will be the HDR and likely newer panel technology for improved colors.

I've try to be objective with the 4K versus 2K (1080P) and it's challenging not to let my own biases get in the way. I do feel like I can notice some of the detail benefits of 4K in nature-related content that isn't high-speed action. Things like wide panning shots of landscape with trees and mountain ridges. The little leaves in the trees and markings in the ridges of ricks pop a bit more and offer what appears to be sharper than in a 2K presentation of the same content. That said, if someone did a A/B demo I'd probably mess it up when guessing which was 4K vs 2K.
I think in a carefully controlled A/B demo with proper content most people could tell the difference. However, remove the careful controls and good luck. The demo loop they show on the TVs in many stores is something like a carefully shot and edited 200+ Mbit/sec HEVC file with no fast motion. Most content people will watch just isn't the right kind of content. Certainly not cable, satellite, or typical streaming (even "4K" streams). Even a high percentage of UHD BD disc are sourced from a 2K DI.

I haven't watch a ton of UHD discs yet, but I've watched a decent number. I can't say that I've really noticed any perceptible difference in sharpness between the ones that are sourced from a 2K DI vs. a 4K DI or film. What I mean is I haven't yet popped in a 2K DI sourced UHD and remark to myself that it looks soft. I wouldn't even be comfortable guessing from visual appearances whether it was from a 2K DI or 4K. That's not to say a side by side wouldn't show subtle apparent differences, but I'm watching movies, not comparing freeze frames.

Frankly, I would put more value in them more closely watching the black levels of the content. Glowing blacks annoy me. The UHD of The Matrix had a few glowing black moments. It's the same scenes that had the same issue going all the way back to the DVD. I don't get why they didn't fix them in their 4K remaster while they were tweaking.
 

snowhiker

Wannabe Storage Freak
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
1,451
I do feel like I can notice some of the detail benefits of 4K in nature-related content that isn't high-speed action. Things like wide panning shots of landscape with trees and mountain ridges. The little leaves in the trees and markings in the ridges of ricks pop a bit more and offer what appears to be sharper than in a 2K presentation of the same content.
This.

I was watching the Planet Earth II (4k) series on my brother-in-laws 65" 4K curved Sammy (via Netflix) and the picture did look pretty fantastic. Perhaps as SD mentioned above it's the HDR or WCG and not simply resolution alone that makes the picture pop.

My feeling right now is that there is no need to drop everything and upgrade to 4k immediately. But if you are upgrading to a new TV, you might as well go all 4k and enjoy it as the cost differential is quick evaporating anyways.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,251
Location
Michigan
I bought Planet Earth 2 on UHD Blu-ray, but haven't watched it yet.

I have noticed that the difference between 1080p Blu-ray discs and 1080i HD cable or OTA broadcast content seems more apparent on this tv, but maybe that's the extra 11" of diagonal size responsible. I can't really see how moving to a UHD panel would cause that.
 
Top