Question Why is my budget TV from 2008 so much better (in certain ways) than high-end TVs today?

hurtstotalktoyou

Platinum Member
Mar 24, 2005
2,055
9
81
Here's my TV: https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16889253160

It's a hand-me-down from when my grandmother died, and I use it as a second monitor. (I don't actually have any television service.)

It is very heavy and probably couldn't be wall-mounted. Also, it's only 720p, and it's only 32". Now that I've finally upgraded my PC, I'd like to purchase a 50-inch 4k display, but I'm hesitant to do so, and there are two major reasons:

#1 Glare. All the televisions and displays I've seen are just... well they have lots of glare. But my old 2008 television has basically none---or, if it does have any glare, I can't see it myself.

#2 Viewing angle. All the displays I've seen at Best Buy and Walmart, and even in reviews online, have only a range of viewing angles. But my old 2008 TV can be viewed from all angles, without any sacrifice.

I honestly don't understand this. Clearly, the TV I have must use some sort of different technology.

It is very distressing, because I know this thing is on its last legs. It gets very hot, and has had occasional issues turning on or blacking out. So, sooner or later, I will have to replace it. I don't understand why I can't find something equally wonderful in what will soon be 2022.

Thoughts?
 

mnewsham

Lifer
Oct 2, 2010
14,539
428
136
For your first point, glossy coatings make things look better, the downside is glare is more noticeable but most people are willing to put their TVs in a location that is glare-free. (dedicated home theater room, blackout blinds, etc)

For your second point, most modern TVs are VA panels because VA panel technology has inherently ~3x the contrast ratio of an IPS panel (~3000:1 vs ~1000:1 static contrast ratio). The downside to VA panels are worse off-axis colors, so if viewed from extreme off-angles you'll not have great picture quality or color accuracy.

A modern TV (compared to your current TV) will have much higher pixel density, much faster pixel response time, much lower input latency, and much higher brightness, lower black levels, and higher contrast ratio. Also panel uniformity is probably better too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 13Gigatons

hurtstotalktoyou

Platinum Member
Mar 24, 2005
2,055
9
81
Well it certainly has lower pixel density, that goes without saying. I'm sure it has faster response time and input latency, but, honestly, I just watch videos on youtube so that doesn't really matter to me.

Unless... I have been noticing frame loss when watching videos, even when youtube reports no frame loss. That is very annoying, and if it is a symptom of my television just not being able to 'keep up' then that is definitely a huge drawback. I only watch at 30fps, and I have a 3400G with Vega 11 graphics, so it is puzzling. Perhaps my old TV is to blame?

I disagree about the brightness and black levels, though. I almost listed that as point #3, as my old TV is much brighter than most TVs I've seen on store shelves. The colors are very vibrant too, although it's hard to compare when the disparity in brightness is so dramatic.

Do they still make televisions (or displays) with the older technology?
 

mnewsham

Lifer
Oct 2, 2010
14,539
428
136
I disagree about the brightness and black levels, though. I almost listed that as point #3, as my old TV is much brighter than most TVs I've seen on store shelves. The colors are very vibrant too, although it's hard to compare when the disparity in brightness is so dramatic.
Using showroom TVs is not the greatest idea in the first place, they're run near-constantly every day of the year, probably weren't calibrated or corrected for the location, etc.

Also, you're just plain wrong if you think modern TVs are less bright, OLEDs are potentially a bit dimmer, but OLEDs are meant for dark-room viewing, so any brightly lit store (walmart, bestbuy, costco, etc) is going to be basically the worst case scenario for those TVs.

QLED brightness on the other hand is light years beyond anything your TV can output, and it's why QLED TVs are recommended to people that need a TV for bright open rooms or rooms with large windows. The Samsung Q90A for example can peak at ~1400 nits for highlights, and can do a full-screen white frame at ~675 nits.

Most TVs from the mid to late 2000's would struggle to break 300 nits on highlights and 150 nits full screen.
 

killster1

Banned
Mar 15, 2007
6,208
474
126
Using showroom TVs is not the greatest idea in the first place, they're run near-constantly every day of the year, probably weren't calibrated or corrected for the location, etc.

Also, you're just plain wrong if you think modern TVs are less bright, OLEDs are potentially a bit dimmer, but OLEDs are meant for dark-room viewing, so any brightly lit store (walmart, bestbuy, costco, etc) is going to be basically the worst case scenario for those TVs.

QLED brightness on the other hand is light years beyond anything your TV can output, and it's why QLED TVs are recommended to people that need a TV for bright open rooms or rooms with large windows. The Samsung Q90A for example can peak at ~1400 nits for highlights, and can do a full-screen white frame at ~675 nits.

Most TVs from the mid to late 2000's would struggle to break 300 nits on highlights and 150 nits full screen.
pretty sure the Op needs glasses or maybe less mind altering drugs. I would take Any 50" 4k over a 32" 720p even if it was a 10,000$ sony 720p tv :p


now if it was a trinitron.... i know what you mean tho, i have aLOT of MVA panel 24" 1080p screens, back in the day you could not see most lcds from the side so it was amazing and had great colors
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
89,977
12,027
126
Also his 720p is probably backlit and most of the tvs these days are edge lit, cuz people like thin tv :rolleyes:
 

igor_kavinski

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2020
6,234
3,811
106
Get a relatively cheap Sony TV. The image sharpness is good on them. That's the one thing I've noticed on Sony TVs when comparing them to others in store displays. BUT Sony's upscaling sucks, at least for 720p videos. You need a minimum 1080p input to get good results on a 4K Sony TV, at least that was my experience on the X900E. It still delivered such good results that I was able to sell it off easily and get an LG C8 OLED. I had an LG before the Sony and I somehow got used to the LG picture processing so it seems my brain is back to normal viewing images on the LG. If you get a decent LG Nanocell LED TV, the upscaling results are pretty good, better than the Sony I used to have.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY