TVs at CES 2014: Bye-bye 1080p plasma, hello 4K LED LCD (CNET Article) - Page 6 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-17-2014, 07:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,066
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked: 384
As for the viewing angle thing: I enjoy watching movies with other people, family and guests, as often as I can. So either my guests, or I, end up watching off-axis since not everyone can have a middle seat. I like to know that my guest and I are seeing the same picture quality from wherever we end up sitting.
One of the main selling points of plasma for me, way back when I bought mine, was the wide viewing angles, where I felt one could get a great image off axis as well. I never have, and never will, consider an LCD as a main viewing screen, for this reason alone. (I haven't seen one yet that doesn't exhibit obvious off-axis shifts).

I rejected a number of projection screens with poor off-axis performance for the same reasons.

Not for a moment do I think others "ought to" adopt the same criteria as me, though. It's just a personal choice, no better than someone who has a somewhat different set of criteria. But it certainly is a criteria that makes me cringe at the death of plasma, the ascendance of LCD in it's place, and the dearth of OLED at this point.
R Harkness is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-17-2014, 11:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
xrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

As for the viewing angle thing: I enjoy watching movies with other people, family and guests, as often as I can. So either my guests, or I, end up watching off-axis since not everyone can have a middle seat. I like to know that my guest and I are seeing the same picture quality from wherever we end up sitting.
One of the main selling points of plasma for me, way back when I bought mine, was the wide viewing angles, where I felt one could get a great image off axis as well. I never have, and never will, consider an LCD as a main viewing screen, for this reason alone. (I haven't seen one yet that doesn't exhibit obvious off-axis shifts).

I rejected a number of projection screens with poor off-axis performance for the same reasons.

Not for a moment do I think others "ought to" adopt the same criteria as me, though. It's just a personal choice, no better than someone who has a somewhat different set of criteria. But it certainly is a criteria that makes me cringe at the death of plasma, the ascendance of LCD in it's place, and the dearth of OLED at this point.
Very well said. My main gripe with LCD has always been, and will continue to be, the inherent viewing angle-contrast-uniformity dependancy that comes with transmissive displays. I am an obvious fan of PDP science but in reality I am more of a fan of any display that generates light within discrete pixels.

However, as far as I can tell the vast majority of consumers really don't feel the same. Viewing angle issues aren't even on their radar. My parents have an LED/LCD and I've tried to explain what I see as a weakness and they can't see it.

Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind
xrox is offline  
Old 01-18-2014, 12:24 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Wetumpka, AL
Posts: 15,495
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Liked: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

As for the viewing angle thing: I enjoy watching movies with other people, family and guests, as often as I can. So either my guests, or I, end up watching off-axis since not everyone can have a middle seat. I like to know that my guest and I are seeing the same picture quality from wherever we end up sitting.
One of the main selling points of plasma for me, way back when I bought mine, was the wide viewing angles, where I felt one could get a great image off axis as well. I never have, and never will, consider an LCD as a main viewing screen, for this reason alone. (I haven't seen one yet that doesn't exhibit obvious off-axis shifts).

I rejected a number of projection screens with poor off-axis performance for the same reasons.

Not for a moment do I think others "ought to" adopt the same criteria as me, though. It's just a personal choice, no better than someone who has a somewhat different set of criteria. But it certainly is a criteria that makes me cringe at the death of plasma, the ascendance of LCD in it's place, and the dearth of OLED at this point.

I feel the same about off axis viewing. We have guest over to watch movies and football games. I can't really consider any tech that doesn't have good off axis performance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

Very well said. My main gripe with LCD has always been, and will continue to be, the inherent viewing angle-contrast-uniformity dependancy that comes with transmissive displays. I am an obvious fan of PDP science but in reality I am more of a fan of any display that generates light within discrete pixels.

However, as far as I can tell the vast majority of consumers really don't feel the same. Viewing angle issues aren't even on their radar. My parents have an LED/LCD and I've tried to explain what I see as a weakness and they can't see it.

Off axis viewing isn't where it ends. Most people's displays as so far mal adjusted that its a joke. They're in ignorant bliss while we're spending thousands for a better display. I think I'm jealous. lol

Samsung 64F8500, Panasonic 65VT50, Oppo 95, Tivo Roamio for OTA, Dish VIP722, Marantz AV8801 preamp, Rotel Amps, Atlantic Tech 8200 speakers, Seaton Submersive HP, Calman 5, Chromapure, Accupel DVG-5000, VideoForge HDMI II, i1Display3pro, i1pro2, eecolor colorbox.
JimP is offline  
Old 01-18-2014, 09:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jbug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

As for the viewing angle thing: I enjoy watching movies with other people, family and guests, as often as I can. So either my guests, or I, end up watching off-axis since not everyone can have a middle seat. I like to know that my guest and I are seeing the same picture quality from wherever we end up sitting.
One of the main selling points of plasma for me, way back when I bought mine, was the wide viewing angles, where I felt one could get a great image off axis as well. I never have, and never will, consider an LCD as a main viewing screen, for this reason alone. (I haven't seen one yet that doesn't exhibit obvious off-axis shifts).

I rejected a number of projection screens with poor off-axis performance for the same reasons.

Not for a moment do I think others "ought to" adopt the same criteria as me, though. It's just a personal choice, no better than someone who has a somewhat different set of criteria. But it certainly is a criteria that makes me cringe at the death of plasma, the ascendance of LCD in it's place, and the dearth of OLED at this point.

Off axis is why I went through 2, 65" Sony UHD sets and another one with bad, corner light leakage. Dead center was cool but looking left if sitting right of center, the picture detail washed out and visa versa. I'm talking about three HT chairs sitting within the screen's left and right boundaries. No way, I could live with that either. I'm glad that didn't work out as I can now explore a larger screen that hopefully does a better job off axis. I've only had top of the line PDP from Samsung and Panasonic before the Sony UHD. I told the Sony folks (with picture back up) the exact same thing you said about watching TV with others.
brutusfl likes this.
jbug is offline  
Old 02-23-2014, 09:39 AM
Newbie
 
GPSpilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

Sony stopped using quantum dots because it is to expensive.

Whoa, I hadn't heard that. In 2013 there was lots of hype about quantum-dot-using Sony Triluminos displays (used in the Xperia Z smartphone and high-end TVs such as the KDL-65W850A -- see http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/14/sony-triluminos-quantum-dot-qdvision).

Are you saying the Triluminos displays have been discontinued -- or merely that they no longer use quantum dots?


GPSpilot is offline  
Old 02-23-2014, 10:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,165
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 413 Post(s)
Liked: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by GPSpilot 

Whoa, I hadn't heard that. In 2013 there was lots of hype about quantum-dot-using Sony Triluminos displays (used in the Xperia Z smartphone and high-end TVs such as the KDL-65W850A -- see http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/14/sony-triluminos-quantum-dot-qdvision).

Are you saying the Triluminos displays have been discontinued -- or merely that they no longer use quantum dots?



Some 2014 Sony TVs are Triluminos but nowhere on the net (or even at CES 2014) Sony mentions ''Color IQ" or ''Quantum Dots'', that is why some say that Sony stopped using Quantum Dots.

On the Sony W900A page ''Color IQ'' or ''Quantum Dots'' are mentioned:

http://store.sony.com/55-class-54.6-diag-w900a-internet-tv-zid27-KDL55W900A/cat-27-catid-All-Sony-HD-TVs
8mile13 is offline  
Old 02-24-2014, 01:21 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,408
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 331 Post(s)
Liked: 634
It sure does appear the quantum dot stuff is gone from Sony.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is offline  
Old 02-24-2014, 02:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

It sure does appear the quantum dot stuff is gone from Sony.
Which makes no difference whatsoever if they're returning to using RGB LEDs for the Triluminos displays. It's only a step backwards if they move to white LEDs - though white LEDs can still cover the BT.709 gamut anyway.
Chronoptimist is offline  
Old 02-24-2014, 05:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 260
Looks like we may have an answer:
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.anandtech.com/show/7777/sony-launches-xperia-z2-z2-tablet-and-m2-at-mwc-2014 
the press release talks about how “TRILUMINOS Display for mobile with brand new Live Colour LED uses red & green phosphor with blue LEDs and customised colour filters to produce a brighter and more uniform light. The result is richer colours on the screen for all of your smartphone viewing

So they may be using blue LEDs with red and green phosphors, rather than blue LEDs with yellow phosphors. (standard "white" LEDs)
Of course that's a cell phone and not a TV, so it may not be true for the televisions.
slacker711 likes this.
Chronoptimist is offline  
Old 02-28-2014, 05:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,205
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 742
Another new article on 4K/UHD just posted on CNET: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57618905-221/ultra-hd-4k-tv-cheat-sheet/

-fafrd
fafrd is offline  
Old 03-02-2014, 11:18 AM
Senior Member
 
9179mhb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 51
The salient point being:

"Can you even see the difference?

Probably not. There's only so much detail the human eye can resolve. If you have 20/20 vision (common), sit about 10 feet from your TV (also common), and are buying a typical TV (50-inches or so), you're not going to see the additional resolution.

If you sit closer, or plan on getting a big TV or projector (80+ inches), then 4K becomes much more worthwhile"
Weaselboy and gus738 like this.
9179mhb is offline  
Old 03-02-2014, 11:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,869
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 677 Post(s)
Liked: 946

^........so help me if I see this one more time.......

Masterbrew2 likes this.

Java developers, when I saw what has been placed into Java 8 I was immediately reminded of how I've spent so much of my life trying to protect engineers from themselves. Lambda expressions are a horrible idea. Gentlemen: the goal isn't to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer. The goal is to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer exhausted and hopped up on caffeine at 3 am. What a disaster Java 8 is!
tgm1024 is offline  
Old 03-02-2014, 03:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 223
tgm1024: what do you think is the distance away from a 55-inch 4K set that you can detect a resolution difference over 1080p? 50 feet? 40? 30? 20? 15? 10?

I think at 10 feet you need a 110 inch screen. i wouldn't say that there is no benefit at all from a 55 inch 4K screen at 10 feet but I think to get ALL the resolution benefits of 4K that you really do need a 110 inch screen.

If I am wrong about that then please tell me what size screen will give you the maximum resolution benefits of 4K over 1080P at a distance of 10 feet.

I guarantee you that the SALES FORCE that will push 4K here over the next few years will say today that you only need a 55 inch screen because that is what they are currently selling. The total sell outs who belong to the SALES FORCE will say that you can perceive resolution benefits of 32 inch 4K screens at 100 feet!!!

As more and more people buy 4K and as they make larger and larger sets the SALES FORCE will modify its recommendations and say..well you really need 65 inches--then they'll say 70 inches--then 85 inches--and finally they'll say what you really need is a 110 inch for the living room and 55 inch for the bedroom!

In other words there will always be a push here by the SALES FORCE to sell 4K sets at all sorts of sizes and the SALES FORCE will always claim that you can ALWAYS perceive the resolution difference so shut up and BUY!

I think that 4K is great--I just think why not enjoy the greatness and go 110 inches?

Of course the problem is 4K sets of 110 inches will cost zillions and it will be a few years before they come down in price.

So while it may BOTHER you that there will be some here who advocate large sizes for 4K resolution enjoyment--those voices will remain here time after time after time and will not go away!

So maybe here for the last time will you can state what size you think is ideal for a 4K set when viewed at a distance of 10 feet?

P.S. Let me state for the record that different people may have different answers for this question and that is OK--there may in fact be a scientific answer to 4K perception at 10 feet but SUBJECTIVELY different people might have different aesthetic preferences. Also some people do have vision keener than 20/20.
Artwood is offline  
Old 03-02-2014, 04:16 PM
Senior Member
 
9179mhb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

^........so help me if I see this one more time.......

Don't shoot the messenger eek.gif

Ultra HD 4K TV Cheat Sheet by Geoffrey Morrison

I'm just quoting the "expert." wink.gif
9179mhb is offline  
Old 03-02-2014, 04:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,869
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 677 Post(s)
Liked: 946
jeljelly857.gif
Masterbrew2 likes this.

Java developers, when I saw what has been placed into Java 8 I was immediately reminded of how I've spent so much of my life trying to protect engineers from themselves. Lambda expressions are a horrible idea. Gentlemen: the goal isn't to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer. The goal is to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer exhausted and hopped up on caffeine at 3 am. What a disaster Java 8 is!
tgm1024 is offline  
Old 03-02-2014, 04:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,205
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

tgm1024: what do you think is the distance away from a 55-inch 4K set that you can detect a resolution difference over 1080p? 50 feet? 40? 30? 20? 15? 10?

I think at 10 feet you need a 110 inch screen. i wouldn't say that there is no benefit at all from a 55 inch 4K screen at 10 feet but I think to get ALL the resolution benefits of 4K that you really do need a 110 inch screen.

If I am wrong about that then please tell me what size screen will give you the maximum resolution benefits of 4K over 1080P at a distance of 10 feet.

I guarantee you that the SALES FORCE that will push 4K here over the next few years will say today that you only need a 55 inch screen because that is what they are currently selling. The total sell outs who belong to the SALES FORCE will say that you can perceive resolution benefits of 32 inch 4K screens at 100 feet!!!

As more and more people buy 4K and as they make larger and larger sets the SALES FORCE will modify its recommendations and say..well you really need 65 inches--then they'll say 70 inches--then 85 inches--and finally they'll say what you really need is a 110 inch for the living room and 55 inch for the bedroom!

In other words there will always be a push here by the SALES FORCE to sell 4K sets at all sorts of sizes and the SALES FORCE will always claim that you can ALWAYS perceive the resolution difference so shut up and BUY!

I think that 4K is great--I just think why not enjoy the greatness and go 110 inches?

Of course the problem is 4K sets of 110 inches will cost zillions and it will be a few years before they come down in price.

So while it may BOTHER you that there will be some here who advocate large sizes for 4K resolution enjoyment--those voices will remain here time after time after time and will not go away!

So maybe here for the last time will you can state what size you think is ideal for a 4K set when viewed at a distance of 10 feet?

P.S. Let me state for the record that different people may have different answers for this question and that is OK--there may in fact be a scientific answer to 4K perception at 10 feet but SUBJECTIVELY different people might have different aesthetic preferences. Also some people do have vision keener than 20/20.

As long as all of the vendors are only going to marry their best backlights (FALD) with 4K screens, it's a moot point. If you want the best blacks LCD has to offer, you are going to get 4K resolution - end of story.

-fafrd
fafrd is offline  
Old 03-03-2014, 12:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 223
They won't all use FALD--there will be plenty 4K edge lit crap produced--some company like Hisense will make such garbage and you'll have people around here defending them.

Some things never change.
Artwood is offline  
 

Tags
Ces 2014
Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off