Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Here's what I have, a Samsung PN59D8000. At the time it was the top of the line Plasma from Samsung and got it for $1,799. LINK

I personally think Plasma is the best value + picture quality. Of course everyone's different and may think LED is better, but that's to be expected. Or if you have a bright room Plasma wouldn't be the best option either.

Its the amount of energy that plasmas use that puts me off. They do tend to produce fantastic pictures tho.
 
Here's what I have, a Samsung PN59D8000. At the time it was the top of the line Plasma from Samsung and got it for $1,799. LINK

I personally think Plasma is the best value + picture quality. Of course everyone's different and may think LED is better, but that's to be expected. Or if you have a bright room Plasma wouldn't be the best option either.

When I think of plasma I think "high refresh", although I think LEDs are catching up in this aspect.
 
reinventing the wheel

The issue the TV companies have is we all traded in our CRT models for flat panels. Then they tell us we had to buy HD, then we needed 3D TV's, then smart TV's.
The trouble is unlike our phones, most people don't upgrade their TV all that often. I have two Panasonic flat TV's from around 6 years ago, both HD. I also have a Samsung 3D Smart TV from last year. How often do you think I use the 3D glasses (once) or the smart TV function (about 4 times)?
So guess when I'm going to upgrade those Panasonic's? When they die or there is some shift in technology that makes them really look their age. Right now they don't.
Also all three of my TV's are wall mounted. As all the walls in my house are flat, I can't ever imagine buying a curved one.
 
Seriously though, the Samsung curved TV does seem to be a gimmick to me, on it's face, without actually sitting in front of one to experience it. Kind of like the 3D TV's were a big thing a few years ago. Until they figure out how to do 3D without the use of glasses or other accessories, I'm not interested in them.

Agreed. I don't think this will last very long.
 
I saw these at Best Buy last week. Of course they happened to have curved landscapes playing on the TVs, such as the inside of the Colosseum or whatever.

Gimmick.
 
But can you explain those two main advantages please a bit further? Viewing angle - I don't really understand the advantage, there would always be an averted side if I don't sit in front dead center. Why would that be an advantage?
Yeah, I'm confused by people saying that it improves the viewing angle. My gut reaction is that a curved screen is designed to be watched from a single, head-on position.

The issue the TV companies have is we all traded in our CRT models for flat panels.
I'd bloody love another CRT. I've never liked large screens, and would be perfectly happy with a good, fin de siècle 28 incher. I prefer the IQ, and I much prefer decent internal speakers to externals.
 
Terrible idea. The curved screen makes it so only the person seated in the center gets an undistorted view. A gimmick that hopefully won't be repeated. Whoever designed it got their brains down where they sit.
 
The last time I was shopping for a large screen TV, the new Led/3D models had recently come out. My choice was a new LED model for $2500 or an older LCD model for $1200. If I had seen a 30% difference in screen quality, I probably would have forked over $2500, but the 3D looked like crap imo and for the normal picture, the difference on the HD feed at the store, was so subtle, I could not justify paying double. I have been happy with this decision.
The difference is the LED backlight gives you better contrast over the florescent LCD backlight. Keep in mind a LED is a LCD display. The only difference is the backlighting is LEDs not a bright light. There is no such thing as a led display.
 
Seriously though, the Samsung curved TV does seem to be a gimmick to me, on it's face, without actually sitting in front of one to experience it. Kind of like the 3D TV's were a big thing a few years ago. Until they figure out how to do 3D without the use of glasses or other accessories, I'm not interested in them.

They do have this by focussing the picture to specific places but you need to sit in a very specific spot to work properly.

I actually purchased the HTC EVO 3D which offered this and it worked although if it was moved left or right it would ruin the experience.

The glasses filter out the images to each eye for the ability to sit anywhere in sight.
 
Its the amount of energy that plasmas use that puts me off. They do tend to produce fantastic pictures tho.

It’s not all that significant, I recently posted this in another TV thread:


me :) said:
I read this too before we purchased. While it’s true, the actual impact to your pocketbook is pretty trivial:

Our friends at HD Guru did some analysis to determine if there is the real difference between “energy efficient” LED models, and “power hungry” plasmas. According to HD Guru, the LG 47-inch 47LW6500 LED LCD will have an EnergyGuide yearly estimated cost of $13. While the LG 42-inch 42PT350 plasma will have an estimated cost of $21.

LED TV
Power Consumption: 67W
Yearly Electricity Cost: $13.39

Plasma TV
Power Consumption: 136W
Yearly Electricity Cost: $27.25


As you can see in the chart, a plasma television does cost more electricity than an LED TV. However, the resulting cost at the end of the year is not very big, about 10$ more for a 50" plasma. On a 5 years period, the total amount saved would be 50$.

We also have a new[er] Sony LED set, it’s a mid-upper model, good, but still prefer the plasma downstairs.

The playroom has an old Toshiba RP, now that’s a beast in terms of footprint. :D

On topic: the display industry has been improving off angle viewing for years, and it seems like a curved display is a step backwards in this capacity[?] I don’t know from an actual objective measure if it is, but it certainly seems that way from the physical design.
 
Terrible idea. The curved screen makes it so only the person seated in the center gets an undistorted view. A gimmick that hopefully won't be repeated. Whoever designed it got their brains down where they sit.

All evidence and reviews say the opposite. At worst its no worse than a flat TV.

It’s not all that significant, I recently posted this in another TV thread:

Ah thats not bad at all then. I always thought they were 5x - 10x more energy hungry.
 
The issue the TV companies have is we all traded in our CRT models for flat panels. Then they tell us we had to buy HD, then we needed 3D TV's, then smart TV's.
The trouble is unlike our phones, most people don't upgrade their TV all that often. I have two Panasonic flat TV's from around 6 years ago, both HD. I also have a Samsung 3D Smart TV from last year. How often do you think I use the 3D glasses (once) or the smart TV function (about 4 times)?
So guess when I'm going to upgrade those Panasonic's? When they die or there is some shift in technology that makes them really look their age. Right now they don't.
Also all three of my TV's are wall mounted. As all the walls in my house are flat, I can't ever imagine buying a curved one.

Craigslist in my city is full of flat screen tv's. I was looking for a tv late last year and there was an unbelievable amount of flat screens for sale. A lot of them were 2010-12 models though. It could just be a majority of them needing fast money, however, reason for selling indicated that they have upgraded. I ended up buying a brand new 42" unknown Japanese brand for $200.
 
I'd bloody love another CRT. I've never liked large screens, and would be perfectly happy with a good, fin de siècle 28 incher. I prefer the IQ, and I much prefer decent internal speakers to externals.

You're welcome to my 27" CRT that dates to the last siècle (1988, to be exact). The image is still good, but the audio, not so much. Might be expensive to ship, though. :)

True story: The day I got it, it fell and hit the side of a table. The glass face of the CRT ended up against the table's edge, but it was intact. Only the plastic bezel was dented.
 
Ah thats not bad at all then. I always thought they were 5x - 10x more energy hungry.

Yeah, the difference in power consumption is pretty negligible. Some of the other complaints can be valid depending on your specific model, the TV location, and even your tolerance for potential annoyances like fan noise.

:cool:
 
The TV industry usually follows the path of most consumer devices, right? I mean, once hi-res screens started to pop up more we got HD, now 4k, and smart TVs right (with the exception of the 3D TV bubble...)

So where is my laptop with a curved screen?? :rolleyes:


Honestly though, if there are benefits to this (less distortion), the obvious place to use it would be in a PC- where a single user would sit stationary in front of the display.
 
Well, I have one, and let me tell you folks that the experience is brilliant, the curved form enhances the depth aspect of images which are already breathtaking.

How many times now have you repeated that in you mind after you got it home? And now that you've typed it on this thread, did it at least help you feel a little better about that purchase. ;-)
 
Saw the Samsung one today and looked into a mirror. How much worse can it get when that's already an improvement?
 
I don't see the point of a curved television at all.

I don't either. I don't see the point of having any screen curved. I used the lg flex at AT&T. Still could not understand why I would want my phone curved. And to me a curved tv is even less practical. What if you oh say weren't directly in front of the TV all the time or had friends and family so you can't all sit directly in front of it?

----------

Curved screens are better cause our eye balls are curved. :p

Logic at its finest.
Lol.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.