Bonus to a curve and does 3D still exist?

[Skel]

I'm looking at picking up a 4k TV (or the like.. not 100% if they've topped that yet as I'm just starting to look). Is there any bonus to the curved models over the flat one? Are they all able to do 3D with glasses.. has 3D gone the way of Beta Max? I'd be in the 65-70 inch area.

 

[DesiPower]

Go for 4k, definitely worth it at that size range.

Curved has no advantage, just aesthetics. Might even look and feel ugly depending upon who and where u keep it, avoid imho.

3D is still alive and kicking, inherent advantage is the better processor they have to use in them. But you will never watch them more than once or twice.

 

[Skel]

Go for 4k, definitely worth it at that size range.

Curved has no advantage, just aesthetics. Might even look and feel ugly depending upon who and where u keep it, avoid imho.

3D is still alive and kicking, inherent advantage is the better processor they have to use in them. But you will never watch them more than once or twice.

I have a 3D TV I bought a few years ago. I personally find that movies shot in 3D played in 2D don't look right to me. When I bought my current TV you couldn't really get a TV in my price range that didn't have 3D as a major selling point. On the few TVs I've looked at, like at Best Buy, I don't see 3D listed anywhere. Wasn't sure if that was because we've advanced the screen enough where it's a given or if it's just been dropped due to lack of interest.

 

[Eug]

The curve is stupid. It serves no useful purpose. Well, the only advantage I've noticed is that the TVs are a few mm narrower, which could come in handy with some TV entertainment units when it's a tight fit.

3D is alive but is on life support. There is no 3D at all in 4K UHD Blu-ray, and both Samsung and Vizio have completely eliminated 3D support from their TV product lines. Completely. LG still has it, but has reduced it greatly.

Ironically, the 2015 Samsung Blu-ray player I just bought and the 2016 Sony projector I just ordered still have 3D support though, but personally I plan never to use that feature. I won't pay for the glasses only to suffer through uncomfortable glasses and nausea.

 

[JeffMD]

Curve is good for a PC monitor with a single user who games and watches movies at his pc a lot (ie limited living space). It does distort lines so web browsing and text editing is kinda awkward. On a large TV it is POINTLESS and will limit optimal viewing angles.

 

[poofyhairguy]

The curve is stupid. It serves no useful purpose.

False. My friend has a curved TV in one of those stupid open concept living rooms with a ton of windows and natural light, and the curve helps diffuse a really nasty glare that a flat TV would be shining right at you.



OP IMHO there are only two questions worth asking when considering a TV in 2016:

Can I afford the LG OLED that is so crazy better than every other TV on black levels it's like comparing Betamax to a Blu Ray? If not, is there any way I can put off my purchase until I can afford the OLED since LED technology is pretty much a waste of money in comparison?

Please note though I am biased towards TVs that give actual great picture quality and not gee whiz features or made up marketing terms.

 

[Eug]

False. My friend has a curved TV in one of those stupid open concept living rooms with a ton of windows and natural light, and the curve helps diffuse a really nasty glare that a flat TV would be shining right at you.

Depends on the TV's coatings, and the placement of the windows. If you check various reviews, some reviewers have curved TVs as having WORSE reflections, because the shape of the reflections is different. Related is the fact that some find the reflections of curved TVs more distracting, because for example, reflected humans look funny.

So arguably, it's a wash here. It might be better in his house, but that doesn't mean curved TVs inherently handle reflections better.

OP IMHO there are only two questions worth asking when considering a TV in 2016:

Can I afford the LG OLED that is so crazy better than every other TV on black levels it's like comparing Betamax to a Blu Ray? If not, is there any way I can put off my purchase until I can afford the OLED since LED technology is pretty much a waste of money in comparison?

Please note though I am biased towards TVs that give actual great picture quality and not gee whiz features or made up marketing terms.

I'd agree that's a pretty limited view. After getting some of the advice of some people here (although I can't remember if you were one of the advisors), I went out shopping a while back and I'd say there are lots of nice TVs out there that aren't OLEDs that most (but not all) people would be happy with.

But in the end, I ordered a projector.

 

[poofyhairguy]

So arguably, it's a wash here. It might be better in his house, but that doesn't mean curved TVs inherently handle reflections better.

Agreed, just pointing out it can serve a purpose for some.

I'd agree that's a pretty limited view. After getting some of the advice of some people here (although I can't remember if you were one of the advisors), I went out shopping a while back and I'd say there are lots of nice TVs out there that aren't OLEDs that most (but not all) people would be happy with.

I was happy to admit it's a limited view. In fact I can promise from today until the day I don't frequent this forum when someone asks for TV buying advice without a budget I am going to beat the OLED drum, and for good reason.

OLED blacks are magnitudes better than LEDs, which means that the picture has a clarity and "pop" that no LED can match. If you have any intention on watching content on a flat panel even close to what that content was mastered on, the only option is OLED. It wins every panel shootout for a reason- anyone who even thinks to call themselves a videophile knows that OLED is superior technology period full stop.

With all that said, you are 100% right that "most people would be happy with" something other than a OLED tv. We know that because plasmas are dead and LCD (rebranded as LED) "won" that battle. I am certain "most" people would be happy with the cheapest LED flat panel they can get at Wal-Mart because it's bright and it looks better than the big fat TV they had 10 years ago.

Like most things in life you don't know how much it can be better until you experience better. You can't appreciate a plasma or OLED until you have watched that dark show like Vikings or Harry Potter 8 on both and the night scenes on the OLED look clear as real life while the stupid LED has this grey veil over it that makes it so you can barely make out the action. FALD cuts some of that gap for LEDs, but blooming is one of things you can "unsee" once you see it and quite frankly most LEDs are not FALD. Most LEDs you can buy are garbage edge lit panels that are actually worse technology than the old fatter LCDs we had in the late 00s because edge lit panels almost always suffer from light bleed and often have worse than average black levels among LCDs (which again are MAGNITUDES worse than OLED).

I figure if someone is actually taking the time to ask for advice on a forum like this they might have the budget and motivation to "do it right." That phrase can only apply to the LG OLED TV line in 2016, nothing else comes close (up to projectors). It's a better technology and it can't hurt a potential shopper to know that option is there. In the CPU forum if someone asked for a CPU and they wanted they best I would recommend the i7 not the celeron, and in comparison LED isn't even a celeron (more like a Pentium 2).

 

[Skel]

Agreed, just pointing out it can serve a purpose for some.



I was happy to admit it's a limited view. In fact I can promise from today until the day I don't frequent this forum when someone asks for TV buying advice without a budget I am going to beat the OLED drum, and for good reason.

OLED blacks are magnitudes better than LEDs, which means that the picture has a clarity and "pop" that no LED can match. If you have any intention on watching content on a flat panel even close to what that content was mastered on, the only option is OLED. It wins every panel shootout for a reason- anyone who even thinks to call themselves a videophile knows that OLED is superior technology period full stop.

With all that said, you are 100% right that "most people would be happy with" something other than a OLED tv. We know that because plasmas are dead and LCD (rebranded as LED) "won" that battle. I am certain "most" people would be happy with the cheapest LED flat panel they can get at Wal-Mart because it's bright and it looks better than the big fat TV they had 10 years ago.

Like most things in life you don't know how much it can be better until you experience better. You can't appreciate a plasma or OLED until you have watched that dark show like Vikings or Harry Potter 8 on both and the night scenes on the OLED look clear as real life while the stupid LED has this grey veil over it that makes it so you can barely make out the action. FALD cuts some of that gap for LEDs, but blooming is one of things you can "unsee" once you see it and quite frankly most LEDs are not FALD. Most LEDs you can buy are garbage edge lit panels that are actually worse technology than the old fatter LCDs we had in the late 00s because edge lit panels almost always suffer from light bleed and often have worse than average black levels among LCDs (which again are MAGNITUDES worse than OLED).

I figure if someone is actually taking the time to ask for advice on a forum like this they might have the budget and motivation to "do it right." That phrase can only apply to the LG OLED TV line in 2016, nothing else comes close (up to projectors). It's a better technology and it can't hurt a potential shopper to know that option is there. In the CPU forum if someone asked for a CPU and they wanted they best I would recommend the i7 not the celeron, and in comparison LED isn't even a celeron (more like a Pentium 2).

I seriously thank you for the info.. I am in the doing it right area vs budget. I do tend to over spend a bit but I only upgrade every X years. In this case 4K is picking up steam with the Xbox now supporting it and Netflix streaming it. It's only a matter of time before DirecTV does it so I'd like to be ahead on it. I'll get a very crude (though awesome) paint drawing later of how my stuff is laid out. It might give you an idea of what I'm looking at.

 

[Eug]

Agreed, just pointing out it can serve a purpose for some.



I was happy to admit it's a limited view. In fact I can promise from today until the day I don't frequent this forum when someone asks for TV buying advice without a budget I am going to beat the OLED drum, and for good reason.

OLED blacks are magnitudes better than LEDs, which means that the picture has a clarity and "pop" that no LED can match. If you have any intention on watching content on a flat panel even close to what that content was mastered on, the only option is OLED. It wins every panel shootout for a reason- anyone who even thinks to call themselves a videophile knows that OLED is superior technology period full stop.

With all that said, you are 100% right that "most people would be happy with" something other than a OLED tv. We know that because plasmas are dead and LCD (rebranded as LED) "won" that battle. I am certain "most" people would be happy with the cheapest LED flat panel they can get at Wal-Mart because it's bright and it looks better than the big fat TV they had 10 years ago.

Like most things in life you don't know how much it can be better until you experience better. You can't appreciate a plasma or OLED until you have watched that dark show like Vikings or Harry Potter 8 on both and the night scenes on the OLED look clear as real life while the stupid LED has this grey veil over it that makes it so you can barely make out the action. FALD cuts some of that gap for LEDs, but blooming is one of things you can "unsee" once you see it and quite frankly most LEDs are not FALD. Most LEDs you can buy are garbage edge lit panels that are actually worse technology than the old fatter LCDs we had in the late 00s because edge lit panels almost always suffer from light bleed and often have worse than average black levels among LCDs (which again are MAGNITUDES worse than OLED).

I figure if someone is actually taking the time to ask for advice on a forum like this they might have the budget and motivation to "do it right." That phrase can only apply to the LG OLED TV line in 2016, nothing else comes close (up to projectors). It's a better technology and it can't hurt a potential shopper to know that option is there. In the CPU forum if someone asked for a CPU and they wanted they best I would recommend the i7 not the celeron, and in comparison LED isn't even a celeron (more like a Pentium 2).

That's the key problem. OLED TVs are so far out of most people's budgets, it becomes a non-starter for 99% of the population at this time.

BTW, I don't consider CPUs a very good analogy. A slower CPU will do the exact same thing as a faster CPU. It just takes longer.

I've been running a Core 2 Duo as my primary laptop for the last 7 years. My main interest is the OS. A Core 2 Duo is getting long in the tooth I have no need for some quad-core high cost speed demon. In fact, I prefer slower CPUs with longer battery life in a thin form factor.