"Samsung, one of Apple's chief rivals"... This statement makes no sense as Apple does NOT make TVs. Samsung makes many, many, many other consumer electronic devices other than cell phones, tablets, and laptops.
I think those who design and promote transparent displays no matter what company they work for should be fired. Other than looking cool in action movies, transparent screens not only have no purpose, they are impossible to use. Seriously. Samsung and anyone else is literally insane if they think transparent displays of any kind have any market potential at all, especially as TV's or computer monitors.
Anyone with half a brain who has thought about this for more than a few moments should be able to see this. It's essentially the same problem as that of "glare" but a hundred times worse.
Good to know that you have a full brain and all these engineers working on transparent displays are morons.
My guess: if they use some kind of a low power consumption screen you can leave on the whole day, you have not just a TV but a picture frame. Use it in landscape or portrait much like your iPad with all kinds of content. Gallery, blackboard or TV. Add Siri and there you have it, a completely new device, home communication and entertainment center.
Samsung isn't announcing a "completely new device" they are promising an "unprecedented new shape".
Sorry to bust that brain fart, now come back with a new shape.
It's a Japanese comic, the comic's name and the main character's name is Yotsuba. The closest comparison I can make is it has some similarities to Calvin and Hobbes, namely because of the age of the protagonist and precociousness. If you only read one, I would recommend Yotsuba. It's available translated into English.
Thanks. I might have to do that just so I can be hip to what the kids are all jiggy about. Dy-no-mite!
The obvious flaw in this reasoning is that "films" are not the thing that people watch on TV the most.
Even if 100% of films were 2.4:1 (they won't be as there the trend is actually towards 16:9 lately), films only make up a portion of what we watch on TV. I don't have the figures on movies versus other content, but common sense would indicate that the non-movie content would be higher than 50%. Possibly a lot higher.
At one point 4:3 TV content was most common and we were able to move to 16:9 TVs. The 4:3 content just sat in the middle (or was stretched) until the programming caught up, but it did. At some point the concession to make the switch happened. I can't see that 16:9 will forever be the the aspect ratio for TV content simply because it's what we have now, especially as TVs grow in size.
To be really immersive, would not the TV have to be large enough to exceed the viewers field of view, from an average distance -- both horizontally and vertically?
Aren't screen size and aspect ratio less than the field of view limits pretty meaningless?
To be really immersive, would not the TV have to be large enough to exceed the viewers field of view, from an average distance -- both horizontally and vertically?
It would also have to exude smell at appropriate times, from cartridges inserted into the bottom of the panel.
Televisions could adopt the inkjet printer model: the device itself would be completely free, but the constituent smell cartridges (all seven) would be $100 apiece and contain enough smell for a few days' programming only.
These could also be said to cover taste, and all that would remain is specialized viewing chairs, manipulating static electricity to manage touch.
To be really immersive, would not the TV have to be large enough to exceed the viewers field of view, from an average distance -- both horizontally and vertically?
Aren't screen size and aspect ratio less than the field of view limits pretty meaningless?
Yes, but what is that optimal immersive view? The retina is pretty much a circle and yet we don't have circular displays or even 1:1 aspect ratio displays. As displays have gotten bigger they've become more widescreen in most cases. The exception to that would be IMAX which I think is 4:3 but that's an extreme example of an immerse experience where the edge of the screen can go beyond our peripheral vision.
Since our eyes are spaced apart side-by-side on a horizontal plane and our extra-ocular muscles saccade more easily from left to right than up and down I assume that widescreen wasn't used for fashion on large displays but for a reason based on our biology. If that is the case would it not also make sense that once you get to a point where the relative height of a television panel is so large that you can't easily absorb content top to bottom without moving your eyes (or head) up and down that it would make sense to instead widen the panel so you can see more content? Have movie theaters gotten it wrong all these decades?
I did a simple, unscientific, but unbiased test. In my hand I held a random playing card. Back side toward me, I brought it two feet out from my eyes then moved it two feet to my right and flipped the card while still looking ahead comfortably (which means I did force my vision to focus on objects much farther away). I repeated this with each cardinal direction. I feel I can much more easily see left and right without effort than I could up and down. What happens when the TV display becomes 6 feet tall and you're sitting 10 feet away? Will 16:9 still make sense?
So, I've seen CA Governers from Earl Warren, Goodie Knight, Pat Brown, Ronald Regan, Duke Deukmejian, Pete Wilson, Gray Davis, the Governator... and Moonbeam (2 times).
This would make a 14:9 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14:9 ) display the closest match and 16:10 next to that but 16:9 is a good aspect and I think we should stick to it:
I don't like super-wide video formats - thinner content seems to give an impression of being higher budget. Whenever you see old VHS content, it looks like low budget now and 16:9 looks like TV content but it's just perception; wider formats just show less vertical content. If TVs switched to 2.35:1, TV content would have to switch too and then you get the same perception that the quality of 2.35:1 is no better.
A TV manufacturer certainly won't drive that change. It's in the whole pipeline from the cameras shooting, to the editing, to the storage formats.
The video of the new Samsung TV shows a 16:9 display.
You've been at this TV thing for well over 4 years now. Do you think 2013 is the year it'll finally happen? If so, what are your expectations for size, price and shipment volume?
It would also have to exude smell at appropriate times, from cartridges inserted into the bottom of the panel.
Televisions could adopt the inkjet printer model: the device itself would be completely free, but the constituent smell cartridges (all seven) would be $100 apiece and contain enough smell for a few days' programming only.
These could also be said to cover taste, and all that would remain is specialized viewing chairs, manipulating static electricity to manage touch.
Gives new meaning to the word "Sensurround"!
Can you imagine the scent for a show like "Judge Judy"? One part DMV, one part senior center.
I was hoping that Apple would run a 3D mapping flyover of Pasadena today -- to capture the Parade route and the Rose Bowl Stadium... My teen years were spent in Pasadena... Lots of great memories!
So, I've seen CA Governers from Earl Warren, Goodie Knight, Pat Brown, Ronald Regan, Duke Deukmejian, Pete Wilson, Gray Davis, the Governator... and Moonbeam (2 times).
...too much of anything!
You must have the patience of a saint!
LOL. Honestly... I've never been described a patient... Or as a saint, for that matter!
One of the neighbor kids brought his new tablet over... It is a Polaroid? It runs Android? First Droid tablet I've ever seen/touched... Maybe after the game, I'll get some hands on with it!
Comments
"Samsung, one of Apple's chief rivals"... This statement makes no sense as Apple does NOT make TVs. Samsung makes many, many, many other consumer electronic devices other than cell phones, tablets, and laptops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I think those who design and promote transparent displays no matter what company they work for should be fired. Other than looking cool in action movies, transparent screens not only have no purpose, they are impossible to use. Seriously. Samsung and anyone else is literally insane if they think transparent displays of any kind have any market potential at all, especially as TV's or computer monitors.
Anyone with half a brain who has thought about this for more than a few moments should be able to see this. It's essentially the same problem as that of "glare" but a hundred times worse.
Good to know that you have a full brain and all these engineers working on transparent displays are morons.
This clearly states whose input is relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1
Good to know that you have a full brain and all these engineers working on transparent displays are morons.
This clearly states whose input is relevant.
Actually I only have half a brain due to a horrible accident as a child which is why I always use the "half a brain" thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by titusm
My guess: if they use some kind of a low power consumption screen you can leave on the whole day, you have not just a TV but a picture frame. Use it in landscape or portrait much like your iPad with all kinds of content. Gallery, blackboard or TV. Add Siri and there you have it, a completely new device, home communication and entertainment center.
Samsung isn't announcing a "completely new device" they are promising an "unprecedented new shape".
Sorry to bust that brain fart, now come back with a new shape.
Well now, that's a house of a different collar...
...or is that a tough roadie to Ho...
At one point 4:3 TV content was most common and we were able to move to 16:9 TVs. The 4:3 content just sat in the middle (or was stretched) until the programming caught up, but it did. At some point the concession to make the switch happened. I can't see that 16:9 will forever be the the aspect ratio for TV content simply because it's what we have now, especially as TVs grow in size.
Aren't screen size and aspect ratio less than the field of view limits pretty meaningless?
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
To be really immersive, would not the TV have to be large enough to exceed the viewers field of view, from an average distance -- both horizontally and vertically?
It would also have to exude smell at appropriate times, from cartridges inserted into the bottom of the panel.
Televisions could adopt the inkjet printer model: the device itself would be completely free, but the constituent smell cartridges (all seven) would be $100 apiece and contain enough smell for a few days' programming only.
These could also be said to cover taste, and all that would remain is specialized viewing chairs, manipulating static electricity to manage touch.
Gives new meaning to the word "Sensurround"!
Yes, but what is that optimal immersive view? The retina is pretty much a circle and yet we don't have circular displays or even 1:1 aspect ratio displays. As displays have gotten bigger they've become more widescreen in most cases. The exception to that would be IMAX which I think is 4:3 but that's an extreme example of an immerse experience where the edge of the screen can go beyond our peripheral vision.
Since our eyes are spaced apart side-by-side on a horizontal plane and our extra-ocular muscles saccade more easily from left to right than up and down I assume that widescreen wasn't used for fashion on large displays but for a reason based on our biology. If that is the case would it not also make sense that once you get to a point where the relative height of a television panel is so large that you can't easily absorb content top to bottom without moving your eyes (or head) up and down that it would make sense to instead widen the panel so you can see more content? Have movie theaters gotten it wrong all these decades?
I did a simple, unscientific, but unbiased test. In my hand I held a random playing card. Back side toward me, I brought it two feet out from my eyes then moved it two feet to my right and flipped the card while still looking ahead comfortably (which means I did force my vision to focus on objects much farther away). I repeated this with each cardinal direction. I feel I can much more easily see left and right without effort than I could up and down. What happens when the TV display becomes 6 feet tall and you're sitting 10 feet away? Will 16:9 still make sense?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Pasadena -- 1949 - 1963
Saratoga CA (Silicon Valley) -- 1973 -1990
Pasadena -- 2001 - 2003
SF East Bay (Forclosure Valley) -- 2003 - present
So, I've seen CA Governers from Earl Warren, Goodie Knight, Pat Brown, Ronald Regan, Duke Deukmejian, Pete Wilson, Gray Davis, the Governator... and Moonbeam (2 times).
...too much of anything!
You must have the patience of a saint!
I'd certainly have fun watching someone try it with a 50"+ TV.
The best display aspect is one that works with human vision, which seems to have angles of view of 140 degrees horizontal and 90 vertical:
http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/tidwell/ch3.html
This would make a 14:9 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14:9 ) display the closest match and 16:10 next to that but 16:9 is a good aspect and I think we should stick to it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:9
I don't like super-wide video formats - thinner content seems to give an impression of being higher budget. Whenever you see old VHS content, it looks like low budget now and 16:9 looks like TV content but it's just perception; wider formats just show less vertical content. If TVs switched to 2.35:1, TV content would have to switch too and then you get the same perception that the quality of 2.35:1 is no better.
A TV manufacturer certainly won't drive that change. It's in the whole pipeline from the cameras shooting, to the editing, to the storage formats.
The video of the new Samsung TV shows a 16:9 display.
I found an interesting thread from a while back:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/91725/what-about-the-mac-mini/40#post_1324886
You've been at this TV thing for well over 4 years now. Do you think 2013 is the year it'll finally happen? If so, what are your expectations for size, price and shipment volume?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
It would also have to exude smell at appropriate times, from cartridges inserted into the bottom of the panel.
Televisions could adopt the inkjet printer model: the device itself would be completely free, but the constituent smell cartridges (all seven) would be $100 apiece and contain enough smell for a few days' programming only.
These could also be said to cover taste, and all that would remain is specialized viewing chairs, manipulating static electricity to manage touch.
Gives new meaning to the word "Sensurround"!
Can you imagine the scent for a show like "Judge Judy"? One part DMV, one part senior center.
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Can you imagine the scent for a show like "Judge Judy"? One part DMV, one part senior center.
Dirty Jobs (though I think that's long ended). ????
Is Ice Road Truckers still on? Sweaty semi cabins and parched ice… What all this reality show crap is doing on the "History Channel" is beyond me…
… Jersey Shore… ????
I was hoping that Apple would run a 3D mapping flyover of Pasadena today -- to capture the Parade route and the Rose Bowl Stadium... My teen years were spent in Pasadena... Lots of great memories!
LOL. Honestly... I've never been described a patient... Or as a saint, for that matter!
One of the neighbor kids brought his new tablet over... It is a Polaroid? It runs Android? First Droid tablet I've ever seen/touched... Maybe after the game, I'll get some hands on with it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Gives new meaning to the word "Sensurround"!
It's already been tried in cinemas (amazingly) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smell-O-Vision
???? On Wisconsin, Get your Bong Wisconsin, Bong Wisconsin, Bong...
Then you get some marijuana...
Touchdown sure this time...
Rah, Rah, Rah...
From a Cardinal fan!