New TV - flat screen or curved?

[Guy Fawkes]

Of course I don't, I'm a videophile.
No, I say it because it's true.
I'm sure the picture is acceptable for those at an angle, but it's not providing a benefit - if you're to the left of the screen, the left hand side of the screen looks smaller than the right hand side and the image is distorted (the left part of the screen faces you less while the right side of the screen faces you more). Now the difference is probably small enough that you don't notice, but let's not pretend it's a benefit. An easy thing to notice is that the black bars at the top and bottom of a letterbox film, which should be straight, no longer appear straight. Again, this fault isn't going to bother many people, but let's not pretend it's good.

It's not a myth, it's simple physics.
How exactly were you proved wrong? Presumably you saw a decent screen and liked the picture, and you're calling that proof. That isn't proof, that's just you liking the picture.


Not read this, but maybe some opinions for the OP to consider:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/92-community-news-polls/1873353-do-you-prefer-flat-curved-tvs.html

I thought that the picture would suffer if you weren't sat directly in front of the TV as per your claim. I found that the picture was still excellent wherever you sat in the room and didn't have to be directly in front to get the benefit - how else am i supposed to prove that you don't have to be sat directly in front of it? if experiencing it first hand and reporting my experience of using one isn't considered good enough by you?

Should i say it's crap when it isn't just to go along with those who (wrongly) think that you have to be directly in front for it to work

 

[Easy 10]

In the end I went for this:

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-and...rt-3d-4k-ultra-hd-55-led-tv-10122384-pdt.html

Now tell me whether I have ****ed up!

Looks like a splendid choice. I guess the 3D is just something that comes along for the ride as it is totally worthless - like having a remote control that smells of cucumber. But the rest of the spec makes it more than worthwhile. And the screen is nice and flat, not bent, so no pointless distortions.

Its a WIN for me.

 

[Triggaaar]

In the end I went for this:

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-and...rt-3d-4k-ultra-hd-55-led-tv-10122384-pdt.html

Now tell me whether I have ****ed up!

Looks good.

You should find out how to adjust the settings so that it looks good at home, as they often don't look as they should when they leave the factory. The reason for this is that the manufacturers want their TV to stand out from the crowd in a shop, so the colours are too vibrant etc.

 

[Triggaaar]

I thought that the picture would suffer if you weren't sat directly in front of the TV as per your claim. I found that the picture was still excellent wherever you sat in the room and didn't have to be directly in front to get the benefit - how else am i supposed to prove that you don't have to be sat directly in front of it?

I am claiming that the picture isn't as good as an equal flat screen if you are at much of an angle. You said that's a myth and proved wrong. Perhaps what you should have said (IMO) is that you've not found it to be an issue. Saying it's proved wrong is misleading. Just because you can't notice the problem does not mean it's not there. You haven't even compared your screen with a flat screen directly above or below it to see the difference. You say "to get the benefit". What benefit is that exactly?

if experiencing it first hand and reporting my experience of using one isn't considered good enough by you?

Your experience is that you're really pleased with it, you think the picture is great and you see no issues. That's cool, but when you claim my point is a myth and I disagree, of course I'm going to say so.

Should i say it's crap when it isn't just to go along with those who (wrongly) think that you have to be directly in front for it to work

I don't think anyone said the TV wouldn't work unless you're directly in front of it. But the picture will be worse (not crap at all, but less good) at an angle than an equivalent flat screen. So why pay more for something that will be less good? You claim I'm wrong, but your reasoning is simply that you like what you've bought, which is not very scientific.

 

[spongy]

We've got a 42" Samsung led HD TV at home. It's not a smart tv either. We bought it off her parents about 4 years ago. We got it for £250. They paid £1k for it, had it a year and then went out and bought a 50" Samsung led 3d all singing TV. They never use the 3d function, when they first got it we sat down and watched Avatar in 3d and I was completely underwhelmed. Even at 50" it's no comparison to a cinema so completely pointless.

Funnily the Mrs asked me today when are we gonna buy a new TV. My reply was "what do we need a new TV for?" ours is still fantastic, I'm waiting for ours to break before I buy a new one. Even if we buy a top of the range one now it's like a computer so will be obsolete within a month or so.

Im waiting for a proper android TV not just a smart tv so you can put apps on it like a smartphone.

Kodi installed on a tv would be the dogs!

 

[Easy 10]

Those Sky menus must look a bit weird when they're all bent up.