Prices of Very Large Flat TVs are Falling Fast

[Esprit]

Anyone know much about the AWOL short throw projectors? A worthy contender to OLED?

Not for blacks.
For a UST projector you can also consider this:
Formovie THEATER

 

[Prince Valiant]

Anyone know much about the AWOL short throw projectors? A worthy contender to OLED?

Premium Home Theater Projector | Cinematic Excellence with AWOL Vision

Get ready for a breathtaking home cinema with AWOL Vision 4K Laser Projectors and premium screens. Experience vibrant visuals—click for top-tier entertainment!

awolvision.com

AWOL Vision LTV-3500 Tri-Laser UST Projector Review

The LTV-3500 from AWOL Vision is one of the brightest UST projectors available. It handles HDR well and measures reasonably well out of the box, earning a Highly Recommended designation.

www.projectorcentral.com

Full on/off contrast looks disappointing; PC has it at 2200:1, AWOL lists 2500. I'd say not.

 

[Chris A]

Dare we say "analog-like"?

Perhaps an insightful comment, but in a reverse sense.

One of the resources that I used in teaching a graduate systems architecting course in engineering is a film hosted by Keanu Reeves in 2012 called Side By Side,, whose sole purpose is to show the filmmaking culture "shock" of converting from photographic film to digital processes--the entire process from taking the images to producing them in commercial theaters.

So it shows the human element in resisting change, even if the resulting changes benefit everyone--except those whose exact skills are inextricably tied to technologies and skills now made redundant--which actually are quite limited--like color-timing and handling of the "dailies" (daily review by cast and crew of what was caught the day before).

Every time I watch this film, I see something that I missed--and mostly from the people that either subtly or overtly resist the changes brought about by technology change. It's a case study in the various ways how system architects are held back from producing the best performing systems because of instituted organization cultures which resist any form of change. Most often this resistance is not for rational engineering or sociological reasons, but rather for irrational personal subjective objections based on ideas that simply aren't valid. Highly recommended to watch.

In the case of digital cameras (a segment of the film occurring strangely toward the end of the film...or should I say "motion picture"), you can see the differences in film vs. digital quality and even in the images of the different digital cameras, like Sony, Red, and Alexa. It was a bit astounding how "analog-looking" the image quality was shifted towards the resulting images as time progressed.

(There are obvious analogs to audio reproduction that I'll not poke here.)

Chris

 

[Slave IV]

Perhaps a insightful comment, but in a reverse sense.

One of the resources that I used in teaching a graduate systems architecting course in engineering is a film hosted by Keanu Reeves in 2012 called Side By Side,, whose sole purpose is to show the filmmaking culture "shock" of converting from photographic film to digital processes--the entire process from taking the images to producing them in commercial theaters.

So it shows the human element in resisting change, even if the resulting changes benefit everyone--except those whose exact skills are inextricably tied to technologies and skills now made redundant--which actually are quite limited--like color-timing and handling of the "dailies" (daily review by cast and crew of what was caught the day before).

Every time I watch this film, I see something that I missed--and mostly from the people that either subtly or overtly resist the changes brought about by technology change. It's a case study in the various ways how system architects are held back from producing the best performing systems because of instituted organization cultures which resist any form of change. Most often this resistance is not for rational engineering or sociological reasons, but rather for irrational personal subjective objections based on ideas that simply aren't valid. Highly recommended to watch.

In the case of digital cameras (a segment of the film occurring strangely toward the end of the film...or should I say "motion picture"), you can see the differences in film vs. digital quality and even in the images of the different digital cameras, like Sony, Red, and Alexa. It was a bit astounding how "analog-looking" the image quality was shifted towards the resulting images as time progressed.

(There are obvious analogs to audio reproduction that I'll not poke here.)

Chris

Great recommendation on Side By Side, I don’t remember all the details as I saw it when it came out at a screening where Keanu talked about it.
For the cameras, there was absolutely an effort from the manufacturers to be able mimic film in order to get directors to sign on, especially early on. I have utmost respect to the colorists who ultimately put the touches to give the final content its look.

As for screens, I agree about what a pleasure it is every time I watch my HT OLED. I make it a point to only watch any content that had people passionately putting in work to make it look good on that screen. Mobile devices and secondary screens are only for informational or casually made content.

 

[Chris A]

...I have utmost respect to the colorists who ultimately put the touches to give the final content its look...

Just to make sure there is no miscommunication on this point: note that I was referring to film-based color-timing which was basically supplanted by digital color editing, as demonstrated in the film by the young red-headed lady who discussed "power windows" and the ability to do specific areas of the frame (at that period in time). I assume that the SOTA has likely advanced in the intervening 12 years which is even more capable...

I make it a point to only watch any content that had people passionately putting in work to make it look good on that screen. Mobile devices and secondary screens are only for informational or casually made content.

You make a clear point here, an area which I tried to soft pedal a bit in contrast to comments that seem much more indifferent to things like screen image quality.

I see this situation similar to sound quality, which seems to be an unevenly valued commodity among those that instead put low loudspeaker cost, physical appearance and small size ahead of acoustic performance.

Chris

 

[Slave IV]

Just to make sure there is no miscommunication on this point: note that I was referring to film-based color-timing which was basically supplanted by digital color editing, as demonstrated in the film by the young red-headed lady who discussed "power windows" and the ability to do specific areas of the frame (at that period in time). I assume that the SOTA has likely advanced in the intervening 12 years which is even more capable...


You make a clear point here, an area which I tried to soft pedal a bit in contrast to comments that seem much more indifferent to things like screen image quality.

I see this situation similar to sound quality, which seems to be an unevenly valued commodity among those that instead put low loudspeaker cost, physical appearance and small size ahead of acoustic performance.

Chris

Same reason for sq that I prefer to only watch content where effort was put into the pq and sq on my ht setup. I want to see and hear the content in as close to what the creators intended as possible. It's such an obsession of mine that I have a huge backlog of content I want to watch, partially because there is so much these days and a big part is I refuse to watch it until I can in the environment I prefer. If I watch a movie on my phone (hypothetically because I never do that), I don't even count that as really watching it until I've really watched it in a proper theater or at least my ht.

 

[AudioJester]

The contrast and the blacks. Unbelievable difference in an actual darkened/normal home environment. Shop floors are generally pretty bright places, and the TVs are all set to "showroom" mode with super vivid, bright colours to look great on the sales-floor.

We bought a 4K UHD OLED Samsung 77" (QA77S90CAW) and the "blacks" are so black you can't tell the TV is even on. You actually need a table/floor lamp on somewhere in the room because dark scenes are so dark. The brightness is incredible too.

I have little interest in giant TVs, having been around them in sales and retail for way too long, so I left the entire purchase/research to my lovely partner. She decided on this expensive (I thought ridiculous) TV as the one we "needed". I'm happy to admit she made a way better choice than I would have made.

100% agree about OLED blacks. The newer QLED/miniLEDs get much closer, but I find their super bright screens (x000 nits) are better than OLED in our typical bright/sunny Aussie lounges. I hate blocking natural light during the day. I do use OLED at night in the bedroom.

Like audio, there is always some tradeoff.

For HDR - lumagen/madVR processing made a big difference for me. Like DSP below transition zone.

 

[Petrushka]

100% agree about OLED blacks. The newer QLED/miniLEDs get much closer, but I find their super bright screens (x000 nits) are better than OLED in our typical bright/sunny Aussie lounges. I hate blocking natural light during the day. I do use OLED at night in the bedroom.

Like audio, there is always some tradeoff.

For HDR - lumagen/madVR processing made a big difference for me. Like DSP below transition zone.

Hisense has insane prices on QLED/miniLED TVs. I don’t know how big they go, but at least 65 inches.

 

[krabapple]

Glossy and matte screens is one of the most annoying things in screen marketing to me. When most screens were glossy, you had to search for a matte screen option and it was usually a "premium" option and then it turned around where matte screens were the norm and glossy screens were "premium" with a bunch of marketing nonsense to validate how "premium" each option was at the time. I wish all screens were just matte but it seems the current rage is still glossy, lol!

er..I'm talking about audio reflections. Matte vs glossy screens won't matter a bit there.

 

[krabapple]

Many models, more the premium end, have anti-reflective coatings.


JSmith

Yikes. Again, I'm talking about audio from speakers flanking a TV, being reflected by the screen. Another source of treble 'room reflection' as it were.

'Anti reflective coatings' (for light) aren't likely to have much effect on that.

 

[Power Pop 23]

Yikes. Again, I'm talking about audio from speakers flanking a TV, being reflected by the screen. Another source of treble 'room reflection' as it were.

'Anti reflective coatings' (for light) aren't likely to have much effect on that.

I would have strongly considered spending extra for a TV screen with an 'anti-reflective coating' IF it also mitigated sound waves !

 

[Slave IV]

er..I'm talking about audio reflections. Matte vs glossy screens won't matter a bit there.

Gotcha. My comment still stands about glossy vs. matte screens since this thread was mostly about the visual aspect of screens, just ignore my original source quote.

 

[Karls_speaker_works]

sometimes I wonder how we got by watching content on such small screens 20+ years ago

I remember the family watching on our 13" color TV 55 years ago.

 

[Oddball]

At the end it is still garbage in garbage out for most of the video and audio content. Just because master is 4K DV and Atmos does not mean that HD 2.0 could not provide a better experience with upscaling video and sound, especially if the underlying 4K content is shallow in real content to start with.

Where OLEDs obviously fail is in size. 97" OLED is priced higher in most markets than 110 or 115" mini LED. As far as I know, OLEDs are not going to get bigger and mini LEDs are going to get cheaper in every size.

 

[Petrushka]

I remember the family watching on our 13" color TV 55 years ago.

At the end it is still garbage in garbage out for most of the video and audio content. Just because master is 4K DV and Atmos does not mean that HD 2.0 could not provide a better experience with upscaling video and sound, especially if the underlying 4K content is shallow in real content to start with.

Where OLEDs obviously fail is in size. 97" OLED is priced higher in most markets than 110 or 115" mini LED. As far as I know, OLEDs are not going to get bigger and mini LEDs are going to get cheaper in every size.

My son was six years old before we upgraded our 5 inch B&W Sony.

I was eleven before my family got a TV.

 

[Oddball]

I had 130" screen 15 years ago and still miss the size. Unfortunately had to size down over the years due to room circumstances, but still miss the sheer size and immersion of that screen. With all the advancement in the mini LED area, it is now difficult to go back, with mini LEDs fully grown up to 110 - 115" size. Too much money would be required for PJ setup and even then quiestionable if one could match the PQ in that size.

I must admit I don't really remember my first family TV, but it was all in colour at the time I can recall. Bought my first 40" trinotron at earliest I could. And then just went at big screens as various technologies developed.

 

[ban25]

I had 130" screen 15 years ago and still miss the size. Unfortunately had to size down over the years due to room circumstances, but still miss the sheer size and immersion of that screen. With all the advancement in the mini LED area, it is now difficult to go back, with mini LEDs fully grown up to 110 - 115" size. Too much money would be required for PJ setup and even then quiestionable if one could match the PQ in that size.

I must admit I don't really remember my first family TV, but it was all in colour at the time I can recall. Bought my first 40" trinotron at earliest I could. And then just went at big screens as various technologies developed.

Very much looking forward to Mini LED at 100"+ for my next TV, hopefully in 2025.

 

[ryusmarty]

I remember the family watching on our 13" color TV 55 years ago.

I still remember watching TV on a 14" black and white CRT screen back in the early 90s as a kid.

 

[Timcognito]

I started watching TV with something like this in the 50s with veneer not latex paint. Hope it strips off and wood underneath is nice. If so, it will become a very nice aquarium. Don't know anything about aquariums or fish but my wife and I spend a lot of time on local charities and causes, so to an auction it will go. 16 gallon cube will fit and is easy to find. 1952 Motorola; in 1982 my brother and I got it working with 2 6AL5 tubes and watched a 49er/Giants game and its been hauled in and out of four residences. 2025 will be its year, 73 yrs later.

 

[mike7877]

100% agree about OLED blacks. The newer QLED/miniLEDs get much closer, but I find their super bright screens (x000 nits) are better than OLED in our typical bright/sunny Aussie lounges. I hate blocking natural light during the day. I do use OLED at night in the bedroom.

Like audio, there is always some tradeoff.

For HDR - lumagen/madVR processing made a big difference for me. Like DSP below transition zone.

I'd like them to start rating the active panels (WRGB OLED, RGB OLED etc.) not at their "off" brightness, but their minimum brightness.

Say you've got an 8 bit panel with white at 100 nits (properly calibrated).
0,0,0 would be R,G,B pixels all off. 1,1,1 would be the darkest grey possible.
Whatever brightness 1,1,1 is supposed to be with 255,255,255 at 100 nits, if an active panel can reproduce this level, it can be "Certified No Black-Crush"
Whatever signal needs to be sent before "off" turns to the dimmest grey "on", say it's (3,3,3), the TV would have "Certified Black-Crush -3"
If at 3,3,3, only R,G,B are lit, and it takes 4,4,4, it's "Certified Black-Crush -4"

Also, we need to start being told the effective bit depth of these displays...

For example, SDR content, white is supposed to be 100 nits. It's also most often 8 bit. From tests I've done on my own OLED, there aren't 8 bits of resolution with white at 100 nits.

8 bits means a range from (R,G,B): 0,0,0 to 255,255,255

If a display can give 255 distinct levels of brightness from each R, G, and B, with 255,255,255 making 100 nits, that TV can be a certified 8 bit SDR display.

Since these TVs all seem to have their own maximum brightness, if it's over 1000 nits, it can be judged for 10 or 12 bit resolution at 1000 nits.
If it's under or over 1000 nits, it can be judged for 10 or 12 bit resolution to its maximum brightness.

Right now none of this is standardized and it's sad. Nobody even reviews these things!
(especially the minimum brightness, I'm fairly sure black crush is still the same issue it was for OLED 5 years ago)