CES 2014: TVs You Don't Need
Monday, January 6, 2014 at 12:10PM 
I bet you have a pretty sweet TV. It’s probably big, and bright, and connected to the internet. It plays movies and TV and streams stuff and is probably paper-thin.
And that’s the problem for TV manufacturers. Your TV is more than good enough. But they only make money when you buy a new one (unless they’re Panasonic. selling ad space on their menu screen). So imagine their desperation to get you to think your awesome TV is worth discarding in favor of a new, several-thousand-dollar model.
Oh, wait, you don’t have to imagine—because the annual Consumer Electronic Show (CES) is happening right now in Las Vegas, the land of let’s-see-if-too-much-of-a-bad-thing-turns-out-to-be-a-good-thing.
It’s not that it’s impossible for a new TV to be announced at CES that would actually improve your movie watching experience at home, but that’s not the actual motivation of the manufacturers.
Last year, it was all about 3D. You must have a 3D TV! What are you, an animal? This year, Vizio, one of the largest TV manufacturers, announced that it is dropping 3D completely.
Dolby announced Dolby Vision, an HDR display method that allows crazy-bright images. While this might be fun for some special venue projects (where the creator dictates the exhibition method), I doubt it will become a standard for movies or TV. But it sure is a wonderful distraction from the simple fact that blacker black levels would be a much better way to improve our home viewing experience—and would require no new standards.
What we should want from our TVs is accuracy, but that’s hard to sell. An accurate TV placed next to one in torch mode would look positively sad.
3D didn’t work last year, so this is the year of 4K. Actually, it’s the year of Moar-K—with Sharp announcing that they can type just about any number followed by a K into a press release.
There’s nothing new to say about 4K in the home—it’s stupid, just like it was last year. Seriously, go back and read this article. Here’s an update: I’ve since set up my home theater. I chose a high-end 1080p projector from JVC, the RS46U. My screen is 132“ diagonally, and my seating distance is about 12.5 feet. The universal reaction I get is ”wow, it’s so sharp!” That’s because the JVC has a great lens, and industry-leading black levels. Eventually you’ll be able to buy an affordable 4K display with no compromises in black levels, but that’s probably a couple of years out. Heck, maybe by then there will actually be some 4K stuff to watch. But beware: there will be a lot of crappy 4K out there as the technology is introduced. Good 1080p (from a low-compression source, like Blu-ray) will beat crappy 4K every time.
Sometimes these new TV gadgets demo well. But that often has little to do with their staying power. Beware the Cream Soda Effect.
CES is also a great time to be reminded that people use TVs for all kinds of stuff, not just watching movies. Many of the announced technologies might make sense for displays used in hotel lobbies and museum exhibits. Keep in mind that manufacturers are trying to create buzz in a more-is-more environment. If they happen make something that’s good for filmmaker or film-lovers, it’s a happy accident.
Oh, and the photo above? It’s a 40-foot-long road-cutting chainsaw that was parked in front of my hotel one year at NAB, also in Las Vegas. It’s really fun to look at, possibly of use to someone, undoubtedly quite expensive, and would be stupid for me to buy. And I didn’t have a photo handy of a 4K TV.
Reader Comments (13)
I don't have much desire for a 4K TV, but I am very interested in a 4K computer monitor since I sit so close to it. What are your thoughts on 4K computer monitors?
I.. have a friend who just bought a 4K TV. are they still a good person?
Dave: 4K computer monitors make a ton of sense, because they're not TVs.
Jason: How big is it and how close are you sitting? I mean, your friend?
I'll just ask him..
Ok in the room its possible to sit anywhere from 6 to 10 feet from a 65"
He did want to add that although he has a 4K capable camera he bought it because it had great sound. Luckily he doesn't read this blog or boy would he feel silly. lol
At 6 feet "the benefits of 4K start to become noticeable," according to the chart.
Agreed on all said, but I say let them pump out a bunch of 4K QFHDTVs and flood the market until they need to dump them cheap. I'm writing this on a Seiki 39" QFHD TV I got for $470 off Amazon, and after turning off all the crap sharpening and smoothing and noise reducing and turning down the brightness, contrast, and saturation...I've got an ENORMOUS sharp palette to do After Effects in. The only downside is that it is 30p, and that is LOW for a computer monitor.
But QFHD TVs, if 60p and properly tweaked, make for a very nice computer monitor.
The Seiki has a ton of annoying issues, but for under $500, I'm loving it.
I did some further math on the subject. Assuming the eye can see a pixel 1/60th of a degree and SMPTE and THX have some recommended fields of view, I calculate that the maximum horizontal resolution you'll EVER need, sitting as close as SMPTE allows, is 3708 pixels, slightly less than UHDTV's 3840. The recommended FOVs I was able to dig up were THX: 40º, SMPTE: 43.4º and 20th Century Fox: 45º. This would give us a horizontal pixel range of 2400-2700, much closer to the 1440p resolution that somebody voted to skip. The preferred FOV for standard TV watching is more like 20º. So basically, 900p for TV and 1600p for immersive cinema would have been GREAT resolutions to develop...if anyone bothered to do the math. But we're stuck in multiples of this and that. 720 is too low for a big screen, jump to 1080. 1080 is too low for the cinema screen, jump to 2160! The good news is, though, unless you plan on not seeing the entire image, such as in environmental projection, there will NEVER be any reason to go above 2160. The math simply doesn't make sense past that. So maybe I'll one day get my 2160 theater room, but for now, there's no reason to bring that resolution to my living room.
Great post Stu. Keep fighting for the side of (not-so-)common sense! If my math doesn't make sense, I blame the blistering Chicago winter I'm suffering right now.
It's very easy to test for yourself if you'll ever need 4K: just get a nice screen grab at 1080p and downsample it to 720p, then display them on your current 1080p screen, switching from one to the other. At what distance are you unable to notice the difference?
In my case, with a very nice 52" screen, I can only see the difference at up to 190cm or something like that. In my living room (330cm from eyes to screen) I'd need a screen larger than 90" to start seeing any real benefits of 1080p over 720p (52*330/190=90).
A reasonably-priced 90" screen with 1080p resolution, nice detail rendering, nice motion, and accurate colors, that's what I want!
Side note: last time I went to the movies I measured that my preferred spot is 20m from a 18m-wide screen; in my living room, that FoV translates to a 133" screen, but the mistress won't allow that, so I'll settle for 90" and save myself all this 4K hassle :)
im confused. CES, a show for demonstrating innovation, is demoing the next gen TV's (of which will be a standard for long time) and you guys are saying its pointless?
I would think of it as a show for presenting the products of today: stuff that is hitting the shelves right now, or that will do so in a few months.
Or think of it as a show for this oven.
oh look at all the baking options!
New test, simpler and more accurate:
* take a screenshot from a bluray (in my case, The Social Network)
* downsample to 540p, then upsample to 1080p
* toggle between those two images on your current 1080p screen: at what distance do you stop noticing the difference?
In my case, it's just a bit farther than my standard viewing distance: 330cm (11 feet) away from a 52" TV. That means that at that distance 540p starts to -just barely- not be good enough. Therefore I would need a 100" screen just to take advantage of 1080p.