What's the benefit of a Curved TV screen

[Scotwight]

I fear that, in 2 years when 50" 4k TVs hit the price sweetspot of 25,000 Baht, TrueVisions will still be broadcasting 150 channels in SD-480p, 50 channels in "HD"-720p, 5 channels in HD-1080p, and zero channels in 4k.

And international internet speed to/from Thailand will still be too anaemic to stream 4k videos.

I don't have any problems streaming 4K from netflix usa. What are on about?

[Berty100]

I fear that, in 2 years when 50" 4k TVs hit the price sweetspot of 25,000 Baht, TrueVisions will still be broadcasting 150 channels in SD-480p, 50 channels in "HD"-720p, 5 channels in HD-1080p, and zero channels in 4k.

And international internet speed to/from Thailand will still be too anaemic to stream 4k videos.

25.000 In 2 years, how about in 2 months?

http://www.lcdtvthailand.com/spec_tv/555/Samsung/UA50KU6000K.html

[harrry]

I am not sure that I would spend that much if I had it. I would like a computer monitor like it but can live withouth it, 3 flat screens are ok really,

Of course if you watch movies eevery night it is a bargain. 2 people to the movies each night would cost 300000baht for tickets alone for 4 years.
I watch one film every two or three weeks so it would not be cost effective for me.

[skippybangkok]

And international internet speed to/from Thailand will still be too anaemic to stream 4k videos.

At xxx baht / yy MB package prices - it would be a sheer miracle to be able to stream 4K to every customer on demand without caching

A lot of people forget that content consumed in US is typically based in the US - as such - better through put. I have tried speed tests when in NEw York back to Bangkok, and can say they are not impressive

[Scotwight]

Truth, very little. The screen is OLED (Organic light emitting diode), it is self illuminating and does not require CCFL or LED to back light the screen. It is the only flexible flatscreen technology today.

But it is hard to manufacture in large screen and Samsung, Sony, Panasonic (infact everyone except LG) is pulling away from it.

The smaller OLED screens used in smartphones will continue but the big boys are basically focusing on high resolution such as 8K screens (UHD is 4k resolution) for big TV screens.

My advice is buy a 4K flatscreen for way less, it will last years and years and give a great picture.

Correct - only LG is currently making OLED panels for TVs. Samsung is taking a time out while they figure out how to increase yields. They had used a different process from LG (who started later), and were not able to reach yields that allowed them to compete in the manufacture of large panels. Samsung will probably get back into the OLED TV market within the next couple of years. Meanwhile, Samsung Display produces the vast majority of Active Matrix OLED panels for smartphones, and has signed on to produce millions of panels for an upcoming iPhone with OLED display. A couple of Chinese manufacturers will most likely begin large OLED panel production within the next couple of years, and I'd expect that OLED TV prices will come down substantially as a result.

Right now, LG is focusing on UHD (4K) for their new OLED TVs. In the US, prices have dropped dramatically over the past year - I've seen 55" Full HD OLED TVs going for as little as $1300 USD, and 55" 4K OLEDS for just over $2,000 USD. As for curved versus flat, I believe that LG produces both styles for most models, and prices are nearly the same.

I would agree with the advice given above - a UHD 4K TV is the sweet spot at the present time. The bad news, though, is that TVs generally cost considerably more in Thailand than in other regions.

I take it that those other cheaper regions don't include Europe, because when I travel to my home country I am surprised how much more the same TV cost there.

Same goes for telephones, way cheaper in Thailand.

Mine cost $1999 in USA Sony and $1904 here in Thailand.

[Scotwight]

And international internet speed to/from Thailand will still be too anaemic to stream 4k videos.

At xxx baht / yy MB package prices - it would be a sheer miracle to be able to stream 4K to every customer on demand without caching

A lot of people forget that content consumed in US is typically based in the US - as such - better through put. I have tried speed tests when in NEw York back to Bangkok, and can say they are not impressive

Download 94.78Mbps Thailand

Download 58.56Mbps USA

3BB Thailand

[melvinmelvin]

I have noe concerns with the relatively newly introduced curved screens. Don't see it as a marketing gimmick but as a signal that TV pruducers are taking on new challenges.

After all, flatscreen TVs which can be hanged on the wall as a painting have been available now for almost 50 years.

No, not in UK high street shops or German high street shops. But the technology and the products have been there for a long long time.

Large flatscreen TVs, 50-60 inches, have been around for about 20 years, in shops, not your standard high street shop but in specialty shops in Japan and Korea,

and I assume here and there in US and Europe, but at a price, these screens commanded wild (WILD) prices 15-20 years ago.

I just conceive the new screens as a message that producers are on to new ideas and presumably superior ways of presenting the TV message/content.

(the world is not flat, your vision is not flat, don't see anything fundamentally wrong with a curved screen (yes, I know, human vision and the world is not curving the same way,

its this convex/concave bit, but still - neither is flat)

(just look at all the problems/challenges/choices you run into when you render a geographic information of the spherical world on a flat piece of paper (called a map))

I find the curved TVs interesting and am reasonably confident that some goodies will result.

[Shiver]

I'm not expert in these matters, but I would imagine that for a curved screen there must be a sweet spot for the viewer distance(?). If they get the 'roll up' technology to market at a price point that people interested in this kind of thing can aspire to then maybe a variable curved screen would have much 'wider scope' (sorry) and appeal to many. It could at least create a new market niche for bezel technology.

I would like to see something modular where you can seamlessly attach and remove multiple units, or share them around the house. There's a lot of room for growth in re-inventing the TV, but the life cycle needs to be something people can keep up with.

I have a 'non smart' flat average screen and it's fine, and most of the stuff I watch was never recorded in a way that can take advantage of anything more than (or even as good as) HDTV, so I'm happy to watch and wait. In my younger days I used to be an 'early adopter' in the lifecycle, but now I wait for broad appeal and standardisation, and maybe in the future I'll become a 'laggard' buyer, with a basic phone with actual buttons and 15 hour talk capacity and a black & white TV (can we call them that anymore of do we have to have a politically correct term these days? Even my mother knew how many lines were on a B&W compared to Colour and understood what she was buying. I have an IT background and I'd have to spend an hour researching to understand all the terms before I even knew what it is I wanted to buy these days.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Shiver

[Naam]

right you are! it goes without saying that only suckers are able to shell out 449,990 Baht for a TV

Nice straw man. The issue is whether or not someone who spends 450,000 Baht on a TV can be reasonably said to be acting rationally in the context of the 'TV marketplace.'

Firstly, given the fact that the cost of a decent average TV is in the region of 20,000 Baht, can it reasonably be said that the experience of watching this TV is 22 times better than watching the average TV? I understand it is subjective and thus difficult to quantify, but on any reasonable metric in my view the answer has to be no.

Secondly, the rate of depreciation on such a purchase is nothing short of horrifying. I can't think of any other consumer electronics that are comparable. I'm sure someone will come along with an example, but that does not diminish the overall point.

No-one is disputing your 'right' to spend whatever you like on a TV. But being in a position to do so doesn't make you somehow cleverer than anyone else or the decision any less idiotic.

no matter how eloquently presented, the arguments

-"cost of a decent average TV",

-"rate of depreciation short of horrifying";

and the (out of thin air drawn) assumption

-"doesn't make you cleverer"

can't hide the fact that your dissertation is based exclusively on a specific personal view. none of these arguments are relevant for people who buy a huge TV as opposed to watching a movie on a laptop, drive a Ferrari instead of a Honda Click scooter or live in a 50m² Baht penthouse instead of a 26m² studio.

destroying your credibility and evidence for my claim is your backing of "moron" and the reference "not any less idiotic".

[SoiBiker]

I'm not expert in these matters, but I would imagine that for a curved screen there must be a sweet spot for the viewer distance(?). If they get the 'roll up' technology to market at a price point that people interested in this kind of thing can aspire to then maybe a variable curved screen would have much 'wider scope' (sorry) and appeal to many. It could at least create a new market niche for bezel technology.

I would like to see something modular where you can seamlessly attach and remove multiple units, or share them around the house. There's a lot of room for growth in re-inventing the TV, but the life cycle needs to be something people can keep up with.

I have a 'non smart' flat average screen and it's fine, and most of the stuff I watch was never recorded in a way that can take advantage of anything more than (or even as good as) HDTV, so I'm happy to watch and wait. In my younger days I used to be an 'early adopter' in the lifecycle, but now I wait for broad appeal and standardisation, and maybe in the future I'll become a 'laggard' buyer, with a basic phone with actual buttons and 15 hour talk capacity and a black & white TV (can we call them that anymore of do we have to have a politically correct term these days? Even my mother knew how many lines were on a B&W compared to Colour and understood what she was buying. I have an IT background and I'd have to spend an hour researching to understand all the terms before I even knew what it is I wanted to buy these days.

B&W TVs had the same number of lines as colour ones - your mother was confusing things with the old 405 line service which pre-dated colour TV.

[harrry]

right you are! it goes without saying that only suckers are able to shell out 449,990 Baht for a TV

Nice straw man. The issue is whether or not someone who spends 450,000 Baht on a TV can be reasonably said to be acting rationally in the context of the 'TV marketplace.'

Firstly, given the fact that the cost of a decent average TV is in the region of 20,000 Baht, can it reasonably be said that the experience of watching this TV is 22 times better than watching the average TV? I understand it is subjective and thus difficult to quantify, but on any reasonable metric in my view the answer has to be no.

Secondly, the rate of depreciation on such a purchase is nothing short of horrifying. I can't think of any other consumer electronics that are comparable. I'm sure someone will come along with an example, but that does not diminish the overall point.

No-one is disputing your 'right' to spend whatever you like on a TV. But being in a position to do so doesn't make you somehow cleverer than anyone else or the decision any less idiotic.

no matter how eloquently presented, the arguments

-"cost of a decent average TV",

-"rate of depreciation short of horrifying";

and the (out of thin air drawn) assumption

-"doesn't make you cleverer"

can't hide the fact that your dissertation is based exclusively on a specific personal view. none of these arguments are relevant for people who buy a huge TV as opposed to watching a movie on a laptop, drive a Ferrari instead of a Honda Click scooter or live in a 50m² Baht penthouse instead of a 26m² studio.

destroying your credibility and evidence for my claim is your backing of "moron" and the reference "not any less idiotic".

I can think of cars I would rather have than a Ferari

[Naam]

right you are! it goes without saying that only suckers are able to shell out 449,990 Baht for a TV

Nice straw man. The issue is whether or not someone who spends 450,000 Baht on a TV can be reasonably said to be acting rationally in the context of the 'TV marketplace.'

Firstly, given the fact that the cost of a decent average TV is in the region of 20,000 Baht, can it reasonably be said that the experience of watching this TV is 22 times better than watching the average TV? I understand it is subjective and thus difficult to quantify, but on any reasonable metric in my view the answer has to be no.

Secondly, the rate of depreciation on such a purchase is nothing short of horrifying. I can't think of any other consumer electronics that are comparable. I'm sure someone will come along with an example, but that does not diminish the overall point.

No-one is disputing your 'right' to spend whatever you like on a TV. But being in a position to do so doesn't make you somehow cleverer than anyone else or the decision any less idiotic.

no matter how eloquently presented, the arguments

-"cost of a decent average TV",

-"rate of depreciation short of horrifying";

and the (out of thin air drawn) assumption

-"doesn't make you cleverer"

can't hide the fact that your dissertation is based exclusively on a specific personal view. none of these arguments are relevant for people who buy a huge TV as opposed to watching a movie on a laptop, drive a Ferrari instead of a Honda Click scooter or live in a 50m² Baht penthouse instead of a 26m² studio.

destroying your credibility and evidence for my claim is your backing of "moron" and the reference "not any less idiotic".

I can think of cars I would rather have than a Ferari

me too. but nobody cares what you or i think about cars.

[MKAsok]

no matter how eloquently presented, the arguments

-"cost of a decent average TV",

-"rate of depreciation short of horrifying";

and the (out of thin air drawn) assumption

-"doesn't make you cleverer"

can't hide the fact that your dissertation is based exclusively on a specific personal view. none of these arguments are relevant for people who buy a huge TV as opposed to watching a movie on a laptop, drive a Ferrari instead of a Honda Click scooter or live in a 50m² Baht penthouse instead of a 26m² studio.

destroying your credibility and evidence for my claim is your backing of "moron" and the reference "not any less idiotic".

I understand the point you're trying to make, but (putting aside the huge TV vs laptop question which is not the point I am making), your analogies are specious.

There is no meaningful comparison to be made between driving a Ferrari and a Honda scooter, or living in a large or small apartment. Those experiences are significantly qualitatively different.

I fly long haul in first class several times a year. The experience when compared to flying in economy is qualitatively incomparable. I would not pay for the experience myself (my company pays), but equally I would not disparage anyone who chooses to do so.

My point is the experience of watching the 450,000 Baht TV and watching the 20,000 Baht TV is substantially a qualitatively similar experience. They are both high definition images and in any event your brain is doing most of the work here. It is a similar phenomenon to the way that 3D is simply a gimmick; once your brain has made the initial adjustment, it is substantially the same experience as watching 2D. It is certainly not enough of a difference to justify anything like the enormous disparity in cost.

[sniffdog]

no matter how eloquently presented, the arguments

-"cost of a decent average TV",

-"rate of depreciation short of horrifying";

and the (out of thin air drawn) assumption

-"doesn't make you cleverer"

can't hide the fact that your dissertation is based exclusively on a specific personal view. none of these arguments are relevant for people who buy a huge TV as opposed to watching a movie on a laptop, drive a Ferrari instead of a Honda Click scooter or live in a 50m² Baht penthouse instead of a 26m² studio.

destroying your credibility and evidence for my claim is your backing of "moron" and the reference "not any less idiotic".

I understand the point you're trying to make, but (putting aside the huge TV vs laptop question which is not the point I am making), your analogies are specious.

There is no meaningful comparison to be made between driving a Ferrari and a Honda scooter, or living in a large or small apartment. Those experiences are significantly qualitatively different.

I fly long haul in first class several times a year. The experience when compared to flying in economy is qualitatively incomparable. I would not pay for the experience myself (my company pays), but equally I would not disparage anyone who chooses to do so.

My point is the experience of watching the 450,000 Baht TV and watching the 20,000 Baht TV is substantially a qualitatively similar experience. They are both high definition images and in any event your brain is doing most of the work here. It is a similar phenomenon to the way that 3D is simply a gimmick; once your brain has made the initial adjustment, it is substantially the same experience as watching 2D. It is certainly not enough of a difference to justify anything like the enormous disparity in cost.

So basically what you're saying is that there is no quality difference between the more expensive OLED tvs and regular (LED) tvs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Naam]

I understand the point you're trying to make, but (putting aside the huge TV vs laptop question which is not the point I am making), your analogies are specious.

There is no meaningful comparison to be made between driving a Ferrari and a Honda scooter, or living in a large or small apartment. Those experiences are significantly qualitatively different.

I fly long haul in first class several times a year. The experience when compared to flying in economy is qualitatively incomparable. I would not pay for the experience myself (my company pays), but equally I would not disparage anyone who chooses to do so.

My point is the experience of watching the 450,000 Baht TV and watching the 20,000 Baht TV is substantially a qualitatively similar experience. They are both high definition images and in any event your brain is doing most of the work here. It is a similar phenomenon to the way that 3D is simply a gimmick; once your brain has made the initial adjustment, it is substantially the same experience as watching 2D. It is certainly not enough of a difference to justify anything like the enormous disparity in cost.

your point, respectively personal view, is acceptable because it neither contains nor refers to expressions and adjectives such as "moron" and "idiotic".

[sniffdog]

That wouldn't mean it isn't idiotic .... How can watching a movie on a 78 inch tv be a similar experience than watching it on a 40 inch.

[canuckamuck]

That wouldn't mean it isn't idiotic .... How can watching a movie on a 78 inch tv be a similar experience than watching it on a 40 inch.

Of course it is a similar experience. It is just not the same experience.

It would be extremely similar if you worked out the right distance from the screen to get the same angle of view.

[Sealbash]

Eyeballs curved. TV curved. Makes sense to me

[212Roger]

It might look good if you are in a round room.

[balo]

Wake me up when the curved screens are down in price to 20000 , then I might consider it.

[Don Mega]

Wake me up when the curved screens are down in price to 20000 , then I might consider it.

Here you go. 48" curved for Bt.16,000

http://www.lazada.co.th/tcl-smart-curved-48-48h9610-6555261.html

[lvr181]

Wake me up when the curved screens are down in price to 20000 , then I might consider it.

Here you go. 48" curved for Bt.16,000

http://www.lazada.co.th/tcl-smart-curved-48-48h9610-6555261.html

I looked at your quoted website. It is said that the the TV is curved (under Product details) BUT not curved under Specifications.

Maybe it starts out curved and arrives flat?

[Don Mega]

Wake me up when the curved screens are down in price to 20000 , then I might consider it.

Here you go. 48" curved for Bt.16,000

http://www.lazada.co.th/tcl-smart-curved-48-48h9610-6555261.html

I looked at your quoted website. It is said that the the TV is curved (under Product details) BUT not curved under Specifications.

Maybe it starts out curved and arrives flat?

ohh well. try a 40" samsung for 18k then.

http://www.lazada.co.th/samsung-curved-led-smart-tv-40-ua40j6300ak-1061403.html

[DrDave]

Wake me up when the curved screens are down in price to 20000 , then I might consider it.

Here you go. 48" curved for Bt.16,000

http://www.lazada.co.th/tcl-smart-curved-48-48h9610-6555261.html

I looked at your quoted website. It is said that the the TV is curved (under Product details) BUT not curved under Specifications.

Maybe it starts out curved and arrives flat?

Lazada is notorious for having incorrect descriptions. I've seen a lot of cases where they were sloppy in their cut and paste of product descriptions from one product to the next. For big ticket items, it's always best to check other websites to verify specs based upon the model number.

The TCL TV referenced in the link above definitely has a curved screen - the detailed product spec on Lazada's page is incorrect, while the product description is correct.

[LburtonL]

samsung 65JU6600 .... 4KCurved 65inch at 70 000฿

should I buy it ?

worthy ?

thank you

[elgordo38]

I see the mention of the TCL brand I think it is Chinese and well products from China have a poor reputation in my humble opinion. Anyone own one of these whats your experience share it with us. Color quality life span control problems repair issues. They seem to be 50% cheaper than other popular brands. There must be short cuts somewhere tell us.

[DrDave]

I see the mention of the TCL brand I think it is Chinese and well products from China have a poor reputation in my humble opinion. Anyone own one of these whats your experience share it with us. Color quality life span control problems repair issues. They seem to be 50% cheaper than other popular brands. There must be short cuts somewhere tell us.

TCL TVs are very popular, and have worldwide distribution. Roku selected them as one of only a very few manufacturers (3 or 4 I think) to integrate the Roku streaming platform into the TV itself. Changhong is another up and coming Chinese brand with worldwide distribution. Vizio, an Amercan company that assembles its TVs in China however, has a not so great reputation when it comes to failure and repair rates.

Most smaller TV manufacturers don't make their own LCD panels - they buy them either from the "big guys", or a number of specialist panel manufacturers mostly located in S. Korea, Japan and China. Due to the differential in labor costs, I'd expect a TV assembled in China to be cheaper than one of comparable quality assembled in Japan, South Korea or Eastern Europe.

You can always get input from others by going to the big online retailer sites and looking a product reviews for the brands/models you're interested in.

I had a Haier TV a few years back (manufactured in China), and used it in a commercial environment for 12 hours/day, 7 days a week. It performed flawlessly.

[sniffdog]

samsung 65JU6600 .... 4KCurved 65inch at 70 000฿

should I buy it ?

worthy ?

thank you

Most of the LED tv have an average rating on the Review sites.

If you are not concerned about 4k you might get a superior OLED tv at the same price. I think the model is 55eg910t.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited June 22, 2016 by sniffdog

[Berty100]

I see the mention of the TCL brand I think it is Chinese and well products from China have a poor reputation in my humble opinion. Anyone own one of these whats your experience share it with us. Color quality life span control problems repair issues. They seem to be 50% cheaper than other popular brands. There must be short cuts somewhere tell us.

I don't know where you see the TCL 50% cheaper than other brands, since they are actually more expensive than LG for the same spec, and have very little to offer in UHD.

http://www.lcdtvthailand.com/spec.php

http://www.lcdtvthailand.com/spec.php

[JaseTheBass]

I see the mention of the TCL brand I think it is Chinese and well products from China have a poor reputation in my humble opinion. Anyone own one of these whats your experience share it with us. Color quality life span control problems repair issues. They seem to be 50% cheaper than other popular brands. There must be short cuts somewhere tell us.

I have a 50" TCL that I picked up for around 10k. The picture is better than the 40" Samsung I have.

The software is a bit clunky, but now that i have everything going through an AV amp I only turn it on and off.

A bargain in my book.