Does any company make one without 3-D ?
OLED tvs
- Thread starter ffhdriver
- Start date
- Status
yes, but it probably won't be a TV. it'd be marketted as a monitor/dispay and have no tv functions.
As a tv, don't know why it would be an issue for you. Every top end tv now has 3d. But the industry determined it's a flop, so isn't really marketting it, so isn't charging you more for it as they realize consumers aren't going to pay more for that feature. So just ignore it if you don't want to use it.
As a tv, don't know why it would be an issue for you. Every top end tv now has 3d. But the industry determined it's a flop, so isn't really marketting it, so isn't charging you more for it as they realize consumers aren't going to pay more for that feature. So just ignore it if you don't want to use it.
Last edited:
Article in the NY Times today suggests to wait a year or two and get a 4K TV with high dynamic range. The author suggests there is not much to notice in 4K vs 1080P unless it has HDR. And not a lot of 4K content yet and less of it with HDR encoded.
well, even if there is no 4k content, the 4k tvs have the best processing and extra pixels to make 1080p source look better than on a 1080p screen.
There will always be something better over the horizon in technology related things.
In 2 years, you'll be saying wait, there's HDR+ coming out next year, or 8k or whatever is next.
You'll always have to decide when it's worth it for you to upgrade.
There will always be something better over the horizon in technology related things.
In 2 years, you'll be saying wait, there's HDR+ coming out next year, or 8k or whatever is next.
You'll always have to decide when it's worth it for you to upgrade.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Donald
Article in the NY Times today suggests to wait a year or two and get a 4K TV with high dynamic range. The author suggests there is not much to notice in 4K vs 1080P unless it has HDR. And not a lot of 4K content yet and less of it with HDR encoded.
I'm not in a hurry to get any new TV, my 3 Sharps I bought 8-10 years ago are still working good, the picture quality are as good today as it was 10 years ago.
Article in the NY Times today suggests to wait a year or two and get a 4K TV with high dynamic range. The author suggests there is not much to notice in 4K vs 1080P unless it has HDR. And not a lot of 4K content yet and less of it with HDR encoded.
I'm not in a hurry to get any new TV, my 3 Sharps I bought 8-10 years ago are still working good, the picture quality are as good today as it was 10 years ago.
Marketing and new technology only matters to me when I need a new TV, so if I'm any indication of a lack of adopters of "the next thing", then I can understand why 3D and / or any other technology hasn't been successful in larger numbers.
The technological stepping stones always seem to be bottle necked at various points and the buy-in is never particularly attractive unless my current TV is kaput. That's the only time it matters. I'm always assured of getting more for less if I'm buying a comparable replacement TV a decade later rather than one with a TV feature that's a potential equivalent to the Betamax.
The technological stepping stones always seem to be bottle necked at various points and the buy-in is never particularly attractive unless my current TV is kaput. That's the only time it matters. I'm always assured of getting more for less if I'm buying a comparable replacement TV a decade later rather than one with a TV feature that's a potential equivalent to the Betamax.
Originally Posted By: raytseng
well, even if there is no 4k content, the 4k tvs have the best processing and extra pixels to make 1080p source look better than on a 1080p screen.
The 1080 content on directv is severely compressed, lots of compression artifacts. Does upscaling to 4k help make it look better or just makes it worse? Kind of like amplifying noise...
well, even if there is no 4k content, the 4k tvs have the best processing and extra pixels to make 1080p source look better than on a 1080p screen.
The 1080 content on directv is severely compressed, lots of compression artifacts. Does upscaling to 4k help make it look better or just makes it worse? Kind of like amplifying noise...
Originally Posted By: raytseng
well, even if there is no 4k content, the 4k tvs have the best processing and extra pixels to make 1080p source look better than on a 1080p screen.
There will always be something better over the horizon in technology related things.
In 2 years, you'll be saying wait, there's HDR+ coming out next year, or 8k or whatever is next.
You'll always have to decide when it's worth it for you to upgrade.
There is a nice chart on CNET that shows the viewing distances by TV size where 20/20 vision can start to see the difference in TV resolution. For average TV sizes and watching distances, 20/20 vision can't tell the difference between 4k and 1080p sets.
OLED though is a big set up in "pixel quality" though and almost all manufacturers are making OLED available in 4k TVs only.
From my reading anyways, I'm not going to jump to 4k until the main features that will improve picture quality are in my budget, like high refresh rates, colour range, and localized dimming. More pixels of equal quality to what I have isn't worth anything to me.
well, even if there is no 4k content, the 4k tvs have the best processing and extra pixels to make 1080p source look better than on a 1080p screen.
There will always be something better over the horizon in technology related things.
In 2 years, you'll be saying wait, there's HDR+ coming out next year, or 8k or whatever is next.
You'll always have to decide when it's worth it for you to upgrade.
There is a nice chart on CNET that shows the viewing distances by TV size where 20/20 vision can start to see the difference in TV resolution. For average TV sizes and watching distances, 20/20 vision can't tell the difference between 4k and 1080p sets.
OLED though is a big set up in "pixel quality" though and almost all manufacturers are making OLED available in 4k TVs only.
From my reading anyways, I'm not going to jump to 4k until the main features that will improve picture quality are in my budget, like high refresh rates, colour range, and localized dimming. More pixels of equal quality to what I have isn't worth anything to me.
Originally Posted By: raytseng
well, even if there is no 4k content, the 4k tvs have the best processing and extra pixels to make 1080p source look better than on a 1080p screen.
There will always be something better over the horizon in technology related things.
In 2 years, you'll be saying wait, there's HDR+ coming out next year, or 8k or whatever is next.
You'll always have to decide when it's worth it for you to upgrade.
Did you read the article? Its free to read. It makes little sense to upgrade if what your upgrading to does not look much better than what you currently have. That was one of the authors main points. He acquired the equipment and looked at it side by side.
The CES is on now so lots of talk about new electronic stuff.
well, even if there is no 4k content, the 4k tvs have the best processing and extra pixels to make 1080p source look better than on a 1080p screen.
There will always be something better over the horizon in technology related things.
In 2 years, you'll be saying wait, there's HDR+ coming out next year, or 8k or whatever is next.
You'll always have to decide when it's worth it for you to upgrade.
Did you read the article? Its free to read. It makes little sense to upgrade if what your upgrading to does not look much better than what you currently have. That was one of the authors main points. He acquired the equipment and looked at it side by side.
The CES is on now so lots of talk about new electronic stuff.
I have uverse which is also compressed video. The picture is better on my samsung js8500 4k with quantum dots as compared to on a 1080p screen I had before.
Maybe you won't notice a difference though, hard to say.
It's mainly in the post processing. But isnt all of video just a trick to the human eye anyway?
Your mileage may vary, but in general the more expensive screens will give the best picture even if resolution specs say it should be the same.
Maybe you won't notice a difference though, hard to say.
It's mainly in the post processing. But isnt all of video just a trick to the human eye anyway?
Your mileage may vary, but in general the more expensive screens will give the best picture even if resolution specs say it should be the same.
Originally Posted By: Donald
Originally Posted By: raytseng
well, even if there is no 4k content, the 4k tvs have the best processing and extra pixels to make 1080p source look better than on a 1080p screen.
There will always be something better over the horizon in technology related things.
In 2 years, you'll be saying wait, there's HDR+ coming out next year, or 8k or whatever is next.
You'll always have to decide when it's worth it for you to upgrade.
Did you read the article? Its free to read. It makes little sense to upgrade if what your upgrading to does not look much better than what you currently have. That was one of the authors main points. He acquired the equipment and looked at it side by side.
The CES is on now so lots of talk about new electronic stuff.
I did, but the point is subtle. He's saying his 3 year old (likely top of the line) 1080p tv looks the same playing 1080p material.
But don't twist that into saying if you have say a 5year old 1080p tv or only a 720p tv, you should wait 2more years to upgrade, cause something better is coming out in 2years.
You also shouldn't take it to mean that all 1080p sets are the same, and only thing that matters is the resolution specification.
If you think your bestbuy blackfriday 1080p $499 special from 2007 is the same as a new model year top of the line 4k or even a new 1080p screen just because they both say 1080p on it, then I can't give any more advice.
Originally Posted By: raytseng
well, even if there is no 4k content, the 4k tvs have the best processing and extra pixels to make 1080p source look better than on a 1080p screen.
There will always be something better over the horizon in technology related things.
In 2 years, you'll be saying wait, there's HDR+ coming out next year, or 8k or whatever is next.
You'll always have to decide when it's worth it for you to upgrade.
Did you read the article? Its free to read. It makes little sense to upgrade if what your upgrading to does not look much better than what you currently have. That was one of the authors main points. He acquired the equipment and looked at it side by side.
The CES is on now so lots of talk about new electronic stuff.
I did, but the point is subtle. He's saying his 3 year old (likely top of the line) 1080p tv looks the same playing 1080p material.
But don't twist that into saying if you have say a 5year old 1080p tv or only a 720p tv, you should wait 2more years to upgrade, cause something better is coming out in 2years.
You also shouldn't take it to mean that all 1080p sets are the same, and only thing that matters is the resolution specification.
If you think your bestbuy blackfriday 1080p $499 special from 2007 is the same as a new model year top of the line 4k or even a new 1080p screen just because they both say 1080p on it, then I can't give any more advice.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: raytseng
well, even if there is no 4k content, the 4k tvs have the best processing and extra pixels to make 1080p source look better than on a 1080p screen.
There will always be something better over the horizon in technology related things.
In 2 years, you'll be saying wait, there's HDR+ coming out next year, or 8k or whatever is next.
You'll always have to decide when it's worth it for you to upgrade.
There is a nice chart on CNET that shows the viewing distances by TV size where 20/20 vision can start to see the difference in TV resolution. For average TV sizes and watching distances, 20/20 vision can't tell the difference between 4k and 1080p sets.
OLED though is a big set up in "pixel quality" though and almost all manufacturers are making OLED available in 4k TVs only.
From my reading anyways, I'm not going to jump to 4k until the main features that will improve picture quality are in my budget, like high refresh rates, colour range, and localized dimming. More pixels of equal quality to what I have isn't worth anything to me.
What Donald and the above links are trying to make the point is that one can't tell the difference with resolutions given a particular screen.
Perhaps true, but the subtle difference I would make is is that a person can tell the difference between sets. Screens and processing have changed, and the overall PQ of the screen and improves year over year, even with the same source material.
Originally Posted By: raytseng
well, even if there is no 4k content, the 4k tvs have the best processing and extra pixels to make 1080p source look better than on a 1080p screen.
There will always be something better over the horizon in technology related things.
In 2 years, you'll be saying wait, there's HDR+ coming out next year, or 8k or whatever is next.
You'll always have to decide when it's worth it for you to upgrade.
There is a nice chart on CNET that shows the viewing distances by TV size where 20/20 vision can start to see the difference in TV resolution. For average TV sizes and watching distances, 20/20 vision can't tell the difference between 4k and 1080p sets.
OLED though is a big set up in "pixel quality" though and almost all manufacturers are making OLED available in 4k TVs only.
From my reading anyways, I'm not going to jump to 4k until the main features that will improve picture quality are in my budget, like high refresh rates, colour range, and localized dimming. More pixels of equal quality to what I have isn't worth anything to me.
What Donald and the above links are trying to make the point is that one can't tell the difference with resolutions given a particular screen.
Perhaps true, but the subtle difference I would make is is that a person can tell the difference between sets. Screens and processing have changed, and the overall PQ of the screen and improves year over year, even with the same source material.
Last edited:
What you should get from a 3D capable tv spec is that the screen refresh rate is very high at least 120hz or up to 240hz or higher. This usually translates into a clearer picture in high action video even for non 3D.
Samsung has some flexible OLED screens they say are coming and one 55" they call tv wallpaper that is stuck on the wall with magnets.
Samsung has some flexible OLED screens they say are coming and one 55" they call tv wallpaper that is stuck on the wall with magnets.
I just recently upgraded my rear projection DLP to an OLED. My 10 year old DLP finally quit with the color wheel dying. OLED is absolutely gorgeous picture and super thin too.
Originally Posted By: raytseng
yes, but it probably won't be a TV. it'd be marketted as a monitor/dispay and have no tv functions.
As a tv, don't know why it would be an issue for you. Every top end tv now has 3d. But the industry determined it's a flop, so isn't really marketting it, so isn't charging you more for it as they realize consumers aren't going to pay more for that feature. So just ignore it if you don't want to use it.
The non-OLED sets charge more for 3-d so I think the OLED sets have an up charge for it too. Due to an eye problem, I can't see 3-D.
yes, but it probably won't be a TV. it'd be marketted as a monitor/dispay and have no tv functions.
As a tv, don't know why it would be an issue for you. Every top end tv now has 3d. But the industry determined it's a flop, so isn't really marketting it, so isn't charging you more for it as they realize consumers aren't going to pay more for that feature. So just ignore it if you don't want to use it.
The non-OLED sets charge more for 3-d so I think the OLED sets have an up charge for it too. Due to an eye problem, I can't see 3-D.
I haven't seen any OLED tvs without 3D. Aren't the only ones in the US the LGs right now?
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Donald
Article in the NY Times today suggests to wait a year or two and get a 4K TV with high dynamic range. The author suggests there is not much to notice in 4K vs 1080P unless it has HDR. And not a lot of 4K content yet and less of it with HDR encoded.
They can claim whatever they want, but Id argue based upon getting a new 4K TV that it isn't true...
But maybe mine has HDR and is getting HDR material? Dubious but possible.
Article in the NY Times today suggests to wait a year or two and get a 4K TV with high dynamic range. The author suggests there is not much to notice in 4K vs 1080P unless it has HDR. And not a lot of 4K content yet and less of it with HDR encoded.
They can claim whatever they want, but Id argue based upon getting a new 4K TV that it isn't true...
But maybe mine has HDR and is getting HDR material? Dubious but possible.
Originally Posted By: ffhdriver
Originally Posted By: raytseng
yes, but it probably won't be a TV. it'd be marketted as a monitor/dispay and have no tv functions.
As a tv, don't know why it would be an issue for you. Every top end tv now has 3d. But the industry determined it's a flop, so isn't really marketting it, so isn't charging you more for it as they realize consumers aren't going to pay more for that feature. So just ignore it if you don't want to use it.
The non-OLED sets charge more for 3-d so I think the OLED sets have an up charge for it too. Due to an eye problem, I can't see 3-D.
Find an example, otherwise you're just assuming things are true or living in the past decade.
I don't think you're are not going to find 2 different OLED tv models where the 2nd model has 3d for an upcharge.
It'd be like a new car with an upcharge for airbags, doesn't happen anymore.
Originally Posted By: raytseng
yes, but it probably won't be a TV. it'd be marketted as a monitor/dispay and have no tv functions.
As a tv, don't know why it would be an issue for you. Every top end tv now has 3d. But the industry determined it's a flop, so isn't really marketting it, so isn't charging you more for it as they realize consumers aren't going to pay more for that feature. So just ignore it if you don't want to use it.
The non-OLED sets charge more for 3-d so I think the OLED sets have an up charge for it too. Due to an eye problem, I can't see 3-D.
Find an example, otherwise you're just assuming things are true or living in the past decade.
I don't think you're are not going to find 2 different OLED tv models where the 2nd model has 3d for an upcharge.
It'd be like a new car with an upcharge for airbags, doesn't happen anymore.
- Status
