AV Adviser

4K so much better than 3D

My dislike of 3D is evident if you read my blog with any regularity.  I feel as if the technology was pushed to market too soon and forced down the consumers throats.  And it looks like the consumers have simply spit  the format out, rejecting it for good reason.  Active or passive glasses, wearing glasses at all and little in the way of content, what's to like about 3D?

I'll give you a new technology that absolutely trumps 3D.  It's called 4K resolution.  In simplest terms it's more high def than high def.  It offers a picture that is staggeringly stunning. 

CNET offers us a primer on 4K, What is 4K? Next-generation resolution explained.  It's the next video technology I'm really excited about.  Granted, it'll take a number of hurdles before it makes sense in our homes but let's see the powers that be get behind this instead of wasting their time with 3D. 

If you have a question or if I may be of service email me at radiohannibal@gmail.com

John Hannibal

 

Follow Up On TV Calibration

Last week I wrote a story on calibrating your new TV set.  Coincidentally Andrew Robinson of Home Theater Review had written a story on the same topic recently. 

He followed his story up with a  piece I thought I'd share because it addresses some issues I didn't mention.  The story notes that instead of new TVs having their brightness set too high out of the box, they are often times too low.  It's something called eco-mode.  The bottom line is that neither is a good setting and some accurate tweaking to your picture should be done.

Here's the story from Home Theater Review, How To Avoid Being Torched By Eco-Mode On Your New HDTV.

If you have a question or if I may be of service email me at radiohannibal@gmail.com

John Hannibal

Why Do People Like A TV Picture That's Unnatural

When you get a new TV chances are the picture is not set properly.  often times the manufacturer cranks up the brightness and pushes the red a bit higher than it should be.  This is so that the TV draws attention on a sales floor crowded with other TVs.  Look at me, look at me, it cries.

Sometimes the owner of the new TV will simply leave it like it is, perhaps out of ignorance.  Maybe to their mind it looks fine.  At the very least you should turn the brightness down so as to give the TV a longer life expectancy.  It's hard work for a pixel to shine like that and it can lead to a premature death. 

That still doesn't address the fact that many folks like their TV picture to look unnatural.  They go into the video settings on the TV menu and make adjustments simply based on what looks good to them.  When they're done, often times, the color is still too saturated.  Reds seem to glow on the screen.  That's not the real world. 

So why do people like to watch TV through rose colored glasses?  I really have no explanation other than TV is a sort of escapism from the real world so why not make the picture look unreal. 

There are four ways to adjust your TV picture, the first of which is to make settings based on what you see as I just mentioned.  You can buy a DVD or Blu-ray disc such as Video Essentials or Disney's World Of Wonder disc.  On them you'll find patterns and demo scenes from which you make adjustments.  

If you've spent over $10,000 on a home theater you might want to hire a professional who will calibrate your TV using expensive equipment that attaches to your TV, taking color temperatures and then going into buried factory menus to make very accurate adjustments.  Do not attempt this type of thing yourself.  You can permanently damage your TV. 

Or you can do what I did and use the website Tweak TV.  Simply find your make and model and it'll give you settings based on field studies from professionals who've calibrated your specific TV. 

Often, when the calibration is complete, the owner will look at the picture and claim that it looks dull.  True, it looks dull compared to the unnatural picture they're accustomed to but look at it critically.  It looks natural, like real life. 

When I installed my new AV receiver last week I was taken aback by the realistic quality of my TV picture.  I'd made my TV adjustments long ago but with the added internal processing of the receiver the picture became even more life-like.

It takes some getting used to but after awhile you'll realize just how beautiful and realistic a TV image can be.  My son is already tired of me continually commenting, "look at that amazing picture!".

If you have a question or if I may be of service email me at radiohannibal@gmail.com

John Hannibal

Is 2012 Finally The Year Of OLED TVs

Talk about the boy who cried wolf.  Ever year at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las vegas someone is showing off a TV set using the organic light-emitting diode OLED technology.  The competitor to LED is used in mobile phones and camera displays but hasn't been cost effective in larger sized screens. Sony marketed a small 11" TV using OLED about five years ago with a very hefty price tag and a short life expectancy of the screen. 

OLED is attractive because, well, it's attractive.  The images are much better than on an LED screen giving better contrast, color, viewing angle and refresh rate.  They are more power efficient as well, a good selling point in this green world of ours. 

Yet, as I say, year after year the technology fails to be introduced into the market place because of the price and estimated lifespan of the product.  So is 2012 the year we finally see larger sized OLED TVs in the wild? 

More specifically we're looking at AMOLED.  The AM stands for active-matrix which is explained in the wiki link at the top of the story.  DuPont has been working on the technology for years.  The company has finally landed a deal with an unnamed Asian manufacturer.

Does this give this "leading", as they put it, Asian manufacturer enough time to get a display ready for January's CES show.  More importantly, has technology advanced far enough along to bring the cost down and the longevity up?

Here's a short clip on how DuPont makes an AMOLED display.

                                                                                                                                                            

If you have a question or if I may be of service email me at radiohannibal@gmail.com

John Hannibal

Apple's iTV, Could It Be As Big As Past Products

I haven't read the Steve Jobs biography yet.  I'm waiting for this month's Audible selection to become available on my account.  The big buzz from those who've read it is Jobs talk of getting into the TV business. 

Jobs had talked about television and the difficulty in entering that market in the past.  The company did create Apple TV, but prognosticators have always wondered why Apple would get into TV manufacturing.  It's not as if any of the current manufacturers are raking in the dollars with the razor thin profit margins. 

Still, in the book, Jobs biographer Walter Isaacson says this:

"He very much wanted to do for television sets what he had done for computers, music players, and phones: make them simple and elegant."

And Jobs is quoted as saying this:

"I'd like to create an integrated television set that is completely easy to use,' he told me. 'It would be seamlessly synced with all of your devices and with iCloud.' No longer would users have to fiddle with complex remotes for DVD players and cable channels. 'It will have the simplest user interface you could imagine. I finally cracked it."

So the question is what exactly does he means by "I finally cracked it".  The tech community is of the consensus that it's Siri, the voice recognation assistant on the new iPhone 4s (which incidentally was down most of the day yesterday).  Imagine simply telling your TV what show to turn to or record. 

Most predict that we won't be seeing this iTV or whatever it's to be called until 2013.  In the meantime let the rumor mill run wild. 

Here's a Q & A with tech blogger Darrell Etherington conducted by The Washington Post, Will Apple's iTV transform home entertainment?

Steve Jobs left us with something possibly even more revelatory than this talk of iTV.  In a eulogy by his sister Mona Simpson she revealed that his final words were, "Oh wow...oh wow...oh wow".  There's some interesting interpretations of what was meant by that statement. 

Sony Introduces Personal 3D, HD Viewing

Remember in the late '80s when talk of virtual reality was all the rage.  We were told we'd be wearing headset viewers that would present us a virtual world in which we could do most anything.  Turn to the right and the virtual view would change, turn to the left and see another view of the artificial environment.  It sounded mind blowing.  It never materialized though, at least not in any mass consumer or realistic way. 

Sony is introducing something similar though much more passive.  In fact it simply involves watching video.  It's similar in that you'll be viewing through the same sort of headsets the VR people were touting.  Call it your personal 3D HDTV.  Sony calls it the Personal 3D Viewer.  Here's the story from The new York Times, It’s 3-D, High Definition and in Your Face.

I've been a doubting Thomas about the 3D TV and its use in the home.  Everyone having to wear glasses and having to sit close to the center viewing axis isn't practical or inviting.  This technology, on the other hand, has my interest piqued.  Yes, now you'll have to wear something even bulkier on your head but, hey, you can even lie down and watch. 

I've always loved View Master and even began re-collecting viewers and reels on eBay awhile back.  Looking at those Batman TV series still shots in 3D was magical for me.  Julie Nemar in 3D, purrrrrr.  Now I'm envisioning watching the whole episode in 3D and HD to boot. 

There's a problem though.  Since 3D has not caught on the way the industry was wishing and hoping there's a lack of content.  Is it worth buying this $799 3D personal visor with only limited viewing options.  It's certainly a catch-22 for Sony. 

If you have a question or if I may be of service email me at radiohannibal@gmail.com

John Hannibal

AT&T U-verse Offers Wireless Receiver

ATT&T's U-verse has beaten cable and sat providers to the punch by being the first TV service to offer a wireless receiver.  It's pretty cool but before you order one let's make sure you need it.

The wireless set up allows you to move your TV connected to the service anywhere in the house within reach of a wi-fi signal.  Once it's in the desired spot turn it on and watch the same content you were watching when your TV was tethered to a receiver. 

If you're happy with where your TV is right now and see no reason of ever wanting to move it from room to room then you really don't need it.  Plus a hard wired path is going to be more robust and reliable than a wireless signal.

If you'd always wanted to be able to watch, say, the ballgame in the garage so you can smoke cigars and spill beer on the floor as you high five then it may be for you.  Likewise if it's a new set up and you'd like to have the TV mounted on the wall but can't run an HDMI line to it.  This is a viable option.  Of course you still have to have an AC outlet on the wall behind the TV or suffer an unsightly electrical cord running down the wall to the outlet. 

Here's a promo video on the new service.

If you have a question or if I may be of service email me at radiohannibal@gmail.com

John Hannibal

A Life Without A DVR Seems Impossible

I was watching the Browns game yesterday during a party at a friend's house.  At one point the host picked up the remote to rewind the game so we could view a play again.  To my astonishment a few of the guests asked how he did that. 

Yes, many of my friends and acquaintances are non-technical, but I naively thought just about everyone had a DVR by now.  I mean they have cable or satellite so why doesn't their box have a built-in DVR?  It's a matter of not seeing the benefits clearly when they are given the choice of having a DVR-enabled box or not. 

A DVR runs about $12 per month on your cable or sat bill.  So it is a decision to think about, but when you do consider the pros and cons it seems worth it. 

The ability to rewind or pause live action on the TV is useful and fun sometimes.  Aside from reviewing something you may have missed there's other uses.  Once in awhile they'll show a crowd shot of a ballgame and I'll spot someone I think I recognize.  I can confirm it with a quick rewind.  Or, staying with the sports aspect, rewinding to take a look at the cheerleaders once more is something most men will sheepishly fess up to. 

That's the least of the values of a DVR.  Having a way to record your favorite high def programming is crucial.  It saves time and allows you to only watch what you want to watch on TV.  Without a DVR you plop down on the couch and end up channel surfing, hoping to find something you're interested in.  With a DVR filled with shows you'd scheduled to record you have a choice.  Right now I'm in the midst of watching the three part Ken Burns documentary, Prohibition.  I watch it at my convenience. 

Time is money as the saying goes and the fact that you can fast forward through the commercials on these recorded shows is a worthwhile investment.  Say there's 10 minutes of ads in a half hour show.  You watch two hours worth of shows in an hour and twenty minutes saving you 40 minutes. 

Maybe you do want to see a show the night it airs.  Savvy viewers set up the show to record and then turn on the TV half way through the program.  Now they can fast forward through the commercials and finish watching the show at nearly the same time as if it were live. 

Look at it this way.  Maybe your weekly TV viewing with a DVR adds up to a savings of two hours due to the commercials you skipped.   The DVR costs $3 or so a week.  So those two hours were $1.50 per hour.  Is your hourly rate more than that?

If you have a question or if I may be of service email me at radiohannibal@gmail.com

John Hannibal

 

Are People Finally Over Split Screen TV Viewing?

I was never a fan of split screen TV viewing.  Why would I want to sacrifice a large screen picture for two lesser sized ones? I know, I know, so you can keep track of two sporting events at once.  That's really the only sensible use of it. 

When flat panels entered the market most did not have the split screen feature since it needed more gadgetry (like two tuners) and there was no room in the set.  I used to get a great deal of griping from customers about the lack of split screen capability.  Not so much anymore.

For one, a cable box or, in my case, AT&T's U-verse offers simultaneous multi-channel viewing.  That appeases the fans of it.  I think I used it once, during the FIFA World cup last summer. 

There's also the fact that if you're sitting on your couch with a smart phone or tablet while watching TV you can easily find out the scores of the games you aren't watching.  In some cases you can even watch that other game on the small screen in your hand while still seeing the action of your primary game in all it's glory. 

If you have a question or if I may be of service email me at radiohannibal@gmail.com

John Hannibal

High Def TV Still Dazzles Me

I figured that after a year or so the thrill of watching things in high definition would fade.  Obviously that first time laying eyes on something in high def is stunning.  By now we've all had that experience. 

Well, it's been over five years since I bought a high def TV and you know what, I'm still in awe.  That childlike, magical feeling still fills me when I watch a show in high definition.  I realized this last night watching what was probably the most exciting night of regular season baseball ever.  ESPN and ESPN2 were showing the Red Sox vs. Orioles and Braves vs. Phillies in all their HD glory.  They kept the two other crucial game score boxes in the upper right corner.  Switching back and forth as the night went on, caught up in the drama, had me almost feeling like I was looking through a window onto the real games.  

  And I'm quite disappointed when I have to watch something in standard def now.  That doesn't stop me from watching standard def, and those times are rare, but when The Brady Bunch is being shown from the first episode and it's not available in high def I'm still recording it. 

Thankfully more and more networks are going high def, and cable providers are continually adding these HD channels to their line up.  A DVR is a must so that you can record your favorite high def shows and watch them when you have time instead of simply channel surfing when TV time calls. My go to guide for all shows high def is HD Engadget's weekly posting of Must See HDTV.

If you have a question or if I may be of service email me at radiohannibal@gmail.com

John Hannibal