Managing Light wrote:
To reply directly to a couple of the OP's questions: 4K image resolution:  forget it!  The masses will have to see a hell of a lot more than a JND or so on the showroom floor to cough up the dough.  And 4K isn't that visible: in fact, I will predict that the average joe sixpack won't notice ANY difference between 1080 (P or I) and 4K,  and he's not going to pay for what he can't see.  The only ones who will do that are the techies and the early adopters who desperately need to have bragging rights, and there aren't that many of them to make it worthwhile.

+1.  Tough to create a mass for 4K when there isn't any 4K content available and people will be expected to pay $15-20,000 for a 4K TV.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
The intent is an open discussion on TV technology trends.  Here are some thoughts to get us started:

...  Remember 3D TV?  It seemed to be all the rage last holiday season.  It seemed that every other ad for TVs touted 3D.  Now, despite having hundred of satellite TV channels, only a couple are for 3D channels.  What happened?  (Of course, the "new" 3D technology used by 3d TVs was "old" 4 decades ago when I did my thesis in 3D imaging. 

...  Does anyone have a "Smart TV" -- it's basically a TV that can access the Internet, play simple games, send/receive text/e-mails, etc.?  There are TV models that have these features built-in, and there are add-on devices that add these features to "dumb" TVs.  I'm interested.

...  A 4K Apple TV: Does anyone still care?

...  How come "Picture In Picture" is such a rare feature for DVRs & receivers?  10 years ago, I had Ultimate TV -- a short lived Microsoft DVR for satellite TV, but Microsoft abandoned it, TiVo came along, and DirecTV & Comcast came out with their own DVRs, and many of these "new" DVRs lacked the PIIP feature.  I want it.

...  How here has a home theater?  What's it like?

...  Got any features you want in your next TV?

I have these:   http://liliputing.com/2013/03/android-t … e-cpu.html   Very cool little gadgets.   I paid around $50.00 for mine.   Its pretty smooth.   Browse speed is good.   Movie playback is good.   Apple TV is okay also.   Anybody buying the TV sticks on Ebay be careful.   They aren't all the same with WI/FI strength being one issue.   They can be rooted and are so cheap its no big deal.   Take them with you when you travel instead of a laptop.

Managing Light wrote:
3D: The need for sophisticated glasses for each viewer and the lack of a large amount of programming make this a curiosity.  Add to this that there are a significant number of people who report intense eye strain and headaches while viewing 3D drives the nail in the coffin.

Thanks for your thorough reply.

My 3D thesis, completed back in 1972, produced a very real 3D image without requiring glasses.  Like I said, the 3D technology used by 3D TVs is roughly 40+ years old.

I sometimes get the impression that the TV industry is a bunch of nerds who have lost touch with their customers and are more interested in producing "whiz-bang" stuff that their customers can't use.  I'll give an example:  Although I have satellite TV, I also maintain some cable as backup -- I live downtown in an old Victorian house that is surrounded by very tall buildings -- I can't get TV signals via antenna.  So, I get the bare minimum from the cable company.  A couple of years ago, it cost me $12.25 a month for basically the broadcast channels only -- that some service now costs me over $27 a month.  That's typical of both cable & satellite TV in my experience, the consumer cost constantly, a little bit at a time. 

Recently, the cable company converted (as mandated) from analog to digital.  I have these little digital boxes that I have to install.  But my DVD-Recorders can't control the box, so I can't record two different programs unless I manually switch the channels, which kinda defeats the purpose of all video recording devices.  Worse, it's impossible to hook these devices up to every TV and every recorder and still have it easy to control.  Sure, there are remotes for these digital boxes, but they perform only the most basic TV controls. 

Sometimes, the technology drives me crazy.  I'm seriously thinking about replacing my home theater with a PC & monitor & Internet.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Sometimes, the technology drives me crazy.  I'm seriously thinking about replacing my home theater with a PC & monitor & Internet.

I just have an HD tv and an internet connected device (an Apple TV in this case.. but there are zillions of others) for my video entertainment consumption.  With iTunes and Netflix I don't really need anything else.  I even watch first-run TV shows as they air.  It's really great.  The only thing I get from the cable company is my internet connection... no cable.  Aside from increasing the resolution of the TV I don't see much more new tech needed.

As for 3D.. for TV in the home I just don't see a point.  The requirements for viewing angles are just too small (glasses or no glasses).  With more than a couple people sitting in your average living room.. I don't see the point.

Gaming in 3D is interesting to me, however.  There are still many artefacts however (mainly due to refresh rates and resolution).  There will probably be a brighter future there, technologically speaking, but the market may not be big enough vs. general TV watchers.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
How come "Picture In Picture" is such a rare feature for DVRs & receivers?

Likely because of the advances in DVR. Some friends of mine have satellite TV with all the bells and whistles. They can record four or six shows simultaneously and so rarely if ever try to watch shows simultaneously.

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:
picture in picture is obsolete now because people have alternate concurrent ways to consume information

That and they don't need to see it concurrently because the other channel is being recorded by their DVR.

Smart TVs are definitely the future.

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:
picture in picture is obsolete now because people have alternate concurrent ways to consume information

I do miss being able to feed my quad from the security cameras into the PIP on the TV, though.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Got any features you want in your next TV?

Programming worth watching.

AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:
I have a 10+ year old VCR that does Picture in Picture and you can record two shows that way. Old idea but really I love it. Why didn't modern TV's catch on this?

I've never heard of any VCR that could record two shows simultaneously like today's DVRs.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
How come "Picture In Picture" is such a rare feature for DVRs & receivers?

Orca Bay Images wrote:
Likely because of the advances in DVR. Some friends of mine have satellite TV with all the bells and whistles. They can record four or six shows simultaneously and so rarely if ever try to watch shows simultaneously.

Not me.  I love watching two NFL games at once -- there's only about 10 second of action per minute, and the programs tend to break for commercials (breaking before & after a kickoff should be a sin).  I also think that the modern age encourages people to "multi-task" -- no one gives all their attention to a single TV program.  We're the generation that texts & drives.

What Fun Productions wrote:
The DVR  ...   Easy to use, makes viewer in control and I LOVE zipping through the commercials.

It has made me hate watching live TV.

My first TV (Ultimate TV from Microsoft) actually had a true 30 second skip.  Instead of zipping through a commercial, they disappear at the press of the button.  I miss that, too.

Let There Be Light wrote:

I've never heard of any VCR that could record two shows simultaneously like today's DVRs.

Well it had two tuners, and two tape drives.  You could watch a tape in the first slot and record in the other one or vice versa. Also when watching TV a small PIP in the corner showed you what was on other channels or what you are taping in the 2nd deck.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

My first TV (Ultimate TV from Microsoft) actually had a true 30 second skip.  Instead of zipping through a commercial, they disappear at the press of the button.  I miss that, too.

But now they don't have that do they? Because of whinging from networks and advertisers.

Edge of the Moon wrote:
I'd like to see OLED on big TV screens.

What about small ones?

I am surprised the only choice is Plasma or LCD.....Where are the OLED screens?

Edge of the Moon wrote:
I'd like to see OLED on big TV screens.

AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:
What about small ones?

Those have been around for ages.  I've seen 15" OLED TVs from Sony for at least a year or two.  They're *super* thin.  Pretty amazing if a small screen is what you need/want.

EDIT: actually.. here's a 55" OLED from LG.

http://www.lg.com/ca_en/oled/whats-oledtv.jsp

Peter Claver wrote:

Edge of the Moon wrote:
I'd like to see OLED on big TV screens.

Those have been around for ages.  I've seen 15" OLED TVs from Sony for at least a year or two.  They're *super* thin.  Pretty amazing if a small screen is what you need/want.

EDIT: actually.. here's a 55" OLED from LG.

http://www.lg.com/ca_en/oled/whats-oledtv.jsp

That's cool and all but it's not on the consumer market. Why?

AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:
That's cool and all but it's not on the consumer market. Why?

Price I'm guessing.

EDIT: actually.. wait.. what do you mean "consumer market"?  Apparently it can be had for the bargain basement price of about £8000

http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/tvs/lg-55-inc … -50006604/

Peter Claver wrote:

Edge of the Moon wrote:
I'd like to see OLED on big TV screens.

Those have been around for ages.  I've seen 15" OLED TVs from Sony for at least a year or two.  They're *super* thin.  Pretty amazing if a small screen is what you need/want.

EDIT: actually.. here's a 55" OLED from LG.

http://www.lg.com/ca_en/oled/whats-oledtv.jsp

Check these out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJehexDPEsE
(demo of Samsung's technology in the works)

Peter Claver wrote:
Price I'm guessing.

EDIT: actually.. wait.. what do you mean "consumer market"?  Apparently it can be had for the bargain basement price of about £8000

http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/tvs/lg-55-inc … -50006604/

But not from a local retailer I imagine.

Yeah but your local electronics retailer does not carry OLED TV sets......It's either plasma or LCD, which also are the only two technologies commonly available?

What ever happened to DLP?

AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:

But not from a local retailer I imagine.

Yeah but your local electronics retailer does not carry OLED TV sets......It's either plasma or LCD, which also are the only two technologies commonly available?

What ever happened to DLP?

Again.. it's price.  OLED is new.. once they get the volume going then they'll be easier to find.

DLP is dead in TVs.  It was basically just rear projection so you can't make them very thin.  Thin is king these days (the OLED is only 4mm thick)

DLP is, however, quite prevalent in the front-projection market.

Peter Claver wrote:

Again.. it's price.  OLED is new.. once they get the volume going then they'll be easier to find.

DLP is dead in TVs.  It was basically just rear projection so you can't make them very thin.  Thin is king these days (the OLED is only 4mm thick)

DLP is, however, quite prevalent in the front-projection market.

I didn't know that last tidbit....Interesting

Yeah I hope the price does drop for OLED as that would be fantastic to watch