At my office we have 30" and 23" Mac monitors ? and love them. But
for viewing TV shows and movies, I'm thinking 50+ inches will be a lot more enjoyable then the 32" (12 year old) TV we currently have.
Heck, they just gutted and rebuilt the whole first floor of the house, so seems only natural that we should put a new larger TV and that wonderful new wall ? god it's going to look great
At my office we have 30" and 23" Mac monitors ? and love them. But
for viewing TV shows and movies, I'm thinking 50+ inches will be a lot more enjoyable then the 32" (12 year old) TV we currently have....
Skip
No doubt that that increasing the screen size improves the viewing experience on tvs. But the question is does increasing the screen size on computers enhance the computing experience? For pros there is little doubt, it does. But for typical home users I don't think it does. Most home users don't utilize all that screen space unless they're viewing video content.
I can't say when but the iMac keeps getting bigger and looking more like a tv set. What's the advantage of of bigger screen if the iMac is *just* a computer? Do you need a 27" screen if you browse the internet, use iWork and do photo editing? I don't think so but that's what most non-pros use their iMac for. For typical family use I'm not sure you need a screen bigger than 20", which is what I have. Certainly a 24" is more than enough.
The advantage of increasing screen size is to display video content.
I'm sure Vinea will chime in with the rebuttal and the thread derail will be complete.
If he cared to know the best plasma he would go here and read for a month:
Top sticky thread of the moment? A 486 post thread about a Kuro comparison chart.
2nd thread? The Official Pioneer 9G non-Elite KURO Owner's Discussion Thread.
6th thread? Master Burn-In/IR/Break in Thread Part II.
Yea and verily Plasmas can burn in. It's just rarer today than before. There is a Break-In DVD in that Burn-In thread to reduce the chances of both Image Retention and Burn In.
Frankly, I find 50" too small for home theater. But if I were going to buy a Plasma (I wouldn't) I'd look at this one:
"The TC-P54V10 is Panasonic’s best plasma HDTV to date. Dealers and videophiles have been lamenting Pioneer’s withdrawal of the revered KURO plasma HDTVs from the market. Panasonic’s V10 provides comparable or better performance in nearly every criteria of image quality, at less than half the retail price (50″ vs. 50″) and can be regarded as a worthy successor."
Personally, I'd get a 1080p project in his budget range and a decent screen. But I watch movies rather than TV...
When doing web site, or graphic artwork / designing a BIG screen is SO much nicer to work with. I've had the 23" for 4 years or so, and love it. I got the 30" and find the 23" way to small.
Once you have all of the menus opened for ease of use and quickness, there isn't anything like working with a bigger screen. You DO get spoiled by it.
I have had larger screens then most during my of the time in business (17", 19", when 12 and 15" was the norm) (23", 24" or larger, when 17" to 19" were the norm) (and the 30", cause I wanted it - as my wife and friends say "Over compensation for something or whatever".
Folks are getting smaller cars, I have Park Avenues and Avalons.
Folks are switching to smaller Point & Shot cameras (or Cell Phones), I'm buying a D300
If you're looking for the best picture, just realize that OLED sets are around the corner. They blow everything else away: perfect black, daylight viewable, etc.
I have two Panasonic plasmas - a 50" and a 65", both the professional models with no speakers attached. They are fantastic, and no problems at all with burn in.
The 65" is new, but I watched plenty of AppleTV and stock ticker shows on the 50", and I never noticed any image retention or burn in. They use the screens as advertising billboards in airports, so I doubt that burn in is a factor anymore, and panasonic moves the images around a pixel at a time to solve the problem.
Black levels, color saturation, and viewing angle are all much better than LCDs, and the plasmas are cheaper as well.
Around the corner … if 5 or 6 years down the road, is around the corner.
You can buy them now, but the cost is high. There were plans to release large screen units in 2009, but the global recession caused these plans to be postponed. Moreover, your article is from over two years ago, so the estimation of "5 to 6 years for affordable OLEDs" becomes more like three.
By late next year, I would expect OLED sets to be out in large sizes, probably for 2x the price of LED backlit LCDs. Nonetheless, if you want the best image, the best form-factor, and the best power efficiency, that's the price.
If you're looking for the best picture, just realize that OLED sets are around the corner. They blow everything else away: perfect black, daylight viewable, etc.
What are you basing this on? From seeing the 11" Sony OLED, the technology is massively over-rated. Yes, it's good, but nowhere near as good as I was expecting. LED backlit LCD is very nearly as good to my eyes.
All roads point to the fact this COULD happen, the question is "When"? I'm not going to wait for it to happen. I'll just purchase one, when it does happen … if it is any good.
27" is a far cry from 50+ inch tv's at this time.
Skip
Don't dare wait. After playing with the Magic Mouse for a bit, they'll probably release an eye-straining LED-Backlit LCD TV.
The large-screen demo units I've seen at trade shows, over the past two years.
I'm withholding judgement on large screen OLEDs sets until they come out and I get my eyes on them. But I agree with Mr. H., the 11" OLEDs are not a big improvement on LCD or plasma picture quality IMO.
The iMac is a computer though, quit listening to MacBreak Weekly. I have.
I see two scenarios for an Apple TV set:
1) A convergence device with TV and computer functionality. It might not have all the functionality of a computer, ie you wouldn't edit photos with PS or chop video with this device, but you would be able to browse the internet and check email as well as display all of your media content.
2) The TV is a conventional tv with the ATV built in. That just allows you to play computer generated or acquired media content. The Apple difference may be that Apple will have more content choice through iTunes and you could subscribe to content a la carte instead of buying packages of channels through cable operators. I really think Apple would like to do this but are having a difficult time getting content providers to allow content on iTunes.
The other feature I see Apple developing to differentiate an Apple TV from a Sony and the like is a sophisticated multitouch remote.
The other feature I see Apple developing to differentiate an Apple TV from a Sony and the like is a sophisticated multitouch remote.
I see it being a computer disguised as a TV. That is to say, it will look, feel and be marketed as a TV, but it will have "iTunes built in". I don't see them giving it a web-browser, but the possibility of widgets is probably high. Though I'd bet the widgets wouldn't merely be OS X widgets added on, but made-for-TV widgets. With TV oriented widgets as the built-in ones. TV Guide, Weather etc. I also don't see this coming out until they have the content-deals nailed down, so they can release the TV as a subscription TV. In order to sell thing at a price people can afford, that does everything they would require it to do "right-out-of-the-box".
Step 1. Make sure you're wireless internet network is turned on (requires a wireless network).
Step 2. Plug in "Apple TV" (yeah, same name) and press any button on the remote to turn it on.
Step 3. When prompted type in your wireless network password.
Step 4. Enter your iTunes Activation Code.
Step 5. Enjoy!
The "sophisticated multitouch remote" isn't something I had pondered before, but now that you say it I think you might be right. They can sell the Magic Mouse for $69, they could easily bundle a remote that would retail (if you bought it separately) for about $99. The possibilities of the remote is the problem, they would need the remote to have very few brain-dead easy to understand features. I don't know about all that swiping malarkey. It would need to be more clever than two finger, three fingers swipe up, down, left and right - cause that would confuse the average person very quickly. Either that or they simply go with the new aluminum remote they just released, with perhaps one or two more buttons or it.
For whatever reason I kind of like the idea of its remote having physical buttons. TV is the one time when the more basic the better.
Comments
for viewing TV shows and movies, I'm thinking 50+ inches will be a lot more enjoyable then the 32" (12 year old) TV we currently have.
Heck, they just gutted and rebuilt the whole first floor of the house, so seems only natural that we should put a new larger TV and that wonderful new wall ? god it's going to look great
Skip
At my office we have 30" and 23" Mac monitors ? and love them. But
for viewing TV shows and movies, I'm thinking 50+ inches will be a lot more enjoyable then the 32" (12 year old) TV we currently have....
Skip
No doubt that that increasing the screen size improves the viewing experience on tvs. But the question is does increasing the screen size on computers enhance the computing experience? For pros there is little doubt, it does. But for typical home users I don't think it does. Most home users don't utilize all that screen space unless they're viewing video content.
I can't say when but the iMac keeps getting bigger and looking more like a tv set. What's the advantage of of bigger screen if the iMac is *just* a computer? Do you need a 27" screen if you browse the internet, use iWork and do photo editing? I don't think so but that's what most non-pros use their iMac for. For typical family use I'm not sure you need a screen bigger than 20", which is what I have. Certainly a 24" is more than enough.
The advantage of increasing screen size is to display video content.
I'm sure Vinea will chime in with the rebuttal and the thread derail will be complete.
If he cared to know the best plasma he would go here and read for a month:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=167
Top sticky thread of the moment? A 486 post thread about a Kuro comparison chart.
2nd thread? The Official Pioneer 9G non-Elite KURO Owner's Discussion Thread.
6th thread? Master Burn-In/IR/Break in Thread Part II.
Yea and verily Plasmas can burn in. It's just rarer today than before. There is a Break-In DVD in that Burn-In thread to reduce the chances of both Image Retention and Burn In.
Frankly, I find 50" too small for home theater. But if I were going to buy a Plasma (I wouldn't) I'd look at this one:
http://hdguru.com/the-new-king-of-hd...#comment-43416
Money quote:
"The TC-P54V10 is Panasonic’s best plasma HDTV to date. Dealers and videophiles have been lamenting Pioneer’s withdrawal of the revered KURO plasma HDTVs from the market. Panasonic’s V10 provides comparable or better performance in nearly every criteria of image quality, at less than half the retail price (50″ vs. 50″) and can be regarded as a worthy successor."
Personally, I'd get a 1080p project in his budget range and a decent screen. But I watch movies rather than TV...
Once you have all of the menus opened for ease of use and quickness, there isn't anything like working with a bigger screen. You DO get spoiled by it.
I have had larger screens then most during my of the time in business (17", 19", when 12 and 15" was the norm) (23", 24" or larger, when 17" to 19" were the norm) (and the 30", cause I wanted it
Folks are getting smaller cars, I have Park Avenues and Avalons.
Folks are switching to smaller Point & Shot cameras (or Cell Phones), I'm buying a D300
Go figure.
Skip
They do sound promising, but not anytime soon (for a big screen)
- http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6741419-1.html
Skip
The 65" is new, but I watched plenty of AppleTV and stock ticker shows on the 50", and I never noticed any image retention or burn in. They use the screens as advertising billboards in airports, so I doubt that burn in is a factor anymore, and panasonic moves the images around a pixel at a time to solve the problem.
Black levels, color saturation, and viewing angle are all much better than LCDs, and the plasmas are cheaper as well.
Around the corner … if 5 or 6 years down the road, is around the corner.
You can buy them now, but the cost is high. There were plans to release large screen units in 2009, but the global recession caused these plans to be postponed. Moreover, your article is from over two years ago, so the estimation of "5 to 6 years for affordable OLEDs" becomes more like three.
By late next year, I would expect OLED sets to be out in large sizes, probably for 2x the price of LED backlit LCDs. Nonetheless, if you want the best image, the best form-factor, and the best power efficiency, that's the price.
If you're looking for the best picture, just realize that OLED sets are around the corner. They blow everything else away: perfect black, daylight viewable, etc.
What are you basing this on? From seeing the 11" Sony OLED, the technology is massively over-rated. Yes, it's good, but nowhere near as good as I was expecting. LED backlit LCD is very nearly as good to my eyes.
The one made by Apple.
Has the time run out on that bet yet Ireland?
Yeah, here's your $0.
*Warning* Thread Derail *Warning*
I think Ireland will be right. If they don't release one in a 12-18 months I'll admit defeat but the iMac seems to be morphing into a TV, IMO.
Defeat is for worms!
The iMac is a computer though, quit listening to MacBreak Weekly. I have.
All roads point to the fact this COULD happen, the question is "When"? I'm not going to wait for it to happen. I'll just purchase one, when it does happen … if it is any good.
27" is a far cry from 50+ inch tv's at this time.
Skip
Don't dare wait. After playing with the Magic Mouse for a bit, they'll probably release an eye-straining LED-Backlit LCD TV.
What are you basing this on?
The large-screen demo units I've seen at trade shows, over the past two years.
The large-screen demo units I've seen at trade shows, over the past two years.
I'm withholding judgement on large screen OLEDs sets until they come out and I get my eyes on them. But I agree with Mr. H., the 11" OLEDs are not a big improvement on LCD or plasma picture quality IMO.
Defeat is for worms!
The iMac is a computer though, quit listening to MacBreak Weekly. I have.
I see two scenarios for an Apple TV set:
1) A convergence device with TV and computer functionality. It might not have all the functionality of a computer, ie you wouldn't edit photos with PS or chop video with this device, but you would be able to browse the internet and check email as well as display all of your media content.
2) The TV is a conventional tv with the ATV built in. That just allows you to play computer generated or acquired media content. The Apple difference may be that Apple will have more content choice through iTunes and you could subscribe to content a la carte instead of buying packages of channels through cable operators. I really think Apple would like to do this but are having a difficult time getting content providers to allow content on iTunes.
The other feature I see Apple developing to differentiate an Apple TV from a Sony and the like is a sophisticated multitouch remote.
The other feature I see Apple developing to differentiate an Apple TV from a Sony and the like is a sophisticated multitouch remote.
I see it being a computer disguised as a TV. That is to say, it will look, feel and be marketed as a TV, but it will have "iTunes built in". I don't see them giving it a web-browser, but the possibility of widgets is probably high. Though I'd bet the widgets wouldn't merely be OS X widgets added on, but made-for-TV widgets. With TV oriented widgets as the built-in ones. TV Guide, Weather etc. I also don't see this coming out until they have the content-deals nailed down, so they can release the TV as a subscription TV. In order to sell thing at a price people can afford, that does everything they would require it to do "right-out-of-the-box".
- Step 1. Make sure you're wireless internet network is turned on (requires a wireless network).
- Step 2. Plug in "Apple TV" (yeah, same name) and press any button on the remote to turn it on.
- Step 3. When prompted type in your wireless network password.
- Step 4. Enter your iTunes Activation Code.
- Step 5. Enjoy!
The "sophisticated multitouch remote" isn't something I had pondered before, but now that you say it I think you might be right. They can sell the Magic Mouse for $69, they could easily bundle a remote that would retail (if you bought it separately) for about $99. The possibilities of the remote is the problem, they would need the remote to have very few brain-dead easy to understand features. I don't know about all that swiping malarkey. It would need to be more clever than two finger, three fingers swipe up, down, left and right - cause that would confuse the average person very quickly. Either that or they simply go with the new aluminum remote they just released, with perhaps one or two more buttons or it.For whatever reason I kind of like the idea of its remote having physical buttons. TV is the one time when the more basic the better.
It has very good result.and its functionality is also good and simple.so it is very convenient to use.
More over than It has less price comparlly other brands.
so You will get best quality in reasonable price.