Poll: Which HDTV feature are you least concerned about?
By Richard Lawler 
posted Aug 23rd 2009 12:00PM
posted Aug 23rd 2009 12:00PM
posted Aug 23rd 2009 12:00PM
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
The HDTV feature I'm least concerned about? Thinness. I don't understand this quest by the manufacturers to reduce width beyond the point where it starts reducing the quality of the TV.
Example: edge backlighting on the samsungs instead of the localized dimming in the previous models.
Another example: Reducing the thickness to the point where on-board speakers sound like 50-year old AM transistor radios.
If it's is 3" thick or 0.3" thick, I really don't care. Improve picture quality.
@jjd
Who buys a HDTV for it's speaker quality? That's like buying a computer because it's color was blue, absolutely pointless!
@dagamer43
I may not want an elaborate speaker setup or the clutter of a separate set of speakers. The pursuit of thinness is crazy because they're already damn thin. I want improvements of components inside rather than shrinking them.
I agee with jjd 100%.
I agree that they shouldn't reduce thickness that also reduces other qualities ... thinness is necessary though ... it usually means lighter, easier to handle, and easier to hang on a wall ... it usually look better too on the wall.
Now, @dagamer43 not everyone has (or uses) a surround sound system with their TV, so it is important that the speakers be adequate ... I do, but I would guess that a majority do not.
Agree! Improve the PQ...
Couldn't agree more. Was very surprised to not see this as a choice on the survey.
I can't / don't understand (other than the initial "Wow! Look how THIN it is!" factor) why this is such a huge selling point. I have all 3 of our plasmas mounted on the wall, and frankly, the space that the wall mount takes up is far, far more of a concern than the 1" or maybe 2" that can be saved by a thinner TV. Granted, with thinner comes lighter, but again, other then the one time you mount it and possible the one or two times you move it . . . is this that significant of an issue for people.
I'm not saying that manufacturers should not pursue thinner sets, but at a certain point (and for me, we're at that point) I could really care less whether or not the set in question is .75" thick or 1.25" thick.
The one caveat to this is in the extreme: if technology ever gets to the point that we're talking about paper-thin TVs (i.e. an e-ink display that can be rolled up like a piece of paper) . . . THEN there are some pretty significant advantages to thin-ness. But there's a long way to go before something like that is a reality. In the meantime, I'm far, far more concerned about faithful color reproduction and deep blacks than a missing 1/2 inch of depth.
Hz all the way. A 24fps movie or 29.97fps is going to have zero-zip-nada benefit by having the same frames shown multiple times in a row. What a ridiculous scam! The only place where Hz would be a benefit is if the TV is also used as a computer monitor for some decent gaming.
Well for plasmas, 48 Hz yielded flickering. I presume the same would be true if they showed 50p signals at 50 Hz (the Kuros do at 75 and 100 Hz). I can still see some flickering on some images (not on moving video though) at 60 Hz. It doesn't bother me, but it'd be cool to display 60p at 120 Hz for a rock-steady LCD-like image without losing the motion resolution (and perhaps improving it). Another thing with my Kuro is that there's a slight buzz coming from the screen, and at 100 Hz it becomes inaudible, not so at 75 Hz and less.
I haven't looked into LCD's new features that much, but doesn't black frame interpolation actually help with motion resolution, albeit with the potential to introduce flicker?
Sorry. I should have explained it better. I meant multiples in the sense of from the normal 60 Hz US standard, not the fps of the original source. When I see LCD TVs being advertised at 120 Hz and 240 Hz like it's some incredible technology and they talk about how movies that were filmed in 24fps are so-o-o-o-o much smoother, I just want to scream.
24 goes into 120 and 240 evenly. It doesn't go into 60 evenly. The only point of 120hz TV's, other than as a marketing tool, was to allow for even pulldown (5:5 instead of 3:2) on 24fps material, which is almost exclusively movies shot on film. 120hz TV's (and 240hz TV's) are also capable of properly handling 30fps video sources, but so are 60hz TV's so it isn't a huge benefit.
The way they marketed it was gimmicky, but it does have a real purpose. I wouldn't pay a premium for it, and when I had the choice between a 40" 120hz TV and an identically priced 46" 60hz TV from the same manufacturer (samsung, 1080p) I went for the extra 6 inches. I couldn't be happier with the decision to go bigger instead of going for a feature I would never have used.
widgets. just don't care.
Everything except picture quality. I agree with the first poster on thinness - who cares? And I definitely don't need more Hz of widgets. Just give a better picture and try getting LCD up to plasma/CRT/front projector quality.
Both polls are the same question. One should probably say MOST likely.
mod OP up!
@Richard Lawler - if you're around, read comments - poll questions are identical
Hz and thickness are both more than good enough and have clearly entered into the gimmick category.
How about LCDs with better blacks and better VIEWING ANGLES please!
I agree about the thinness going too far and affecting quality. My friend has a current super-thin edge-lit Samsung LCD. The picture is great, but I've never heard a TV sound so bad in my life.
And yes, I think TV speaker quality does matter. Most of the time, I just wanna watch the TV, and not worry about all the home theatre stuff.
Its both surprising and at the same time not so surprising to see widgets as the least cared for feature. All the other features are pretty important to picture quality, so it that sense its not surprising. But on the other hand widgets seem to be all the rage with the new TV models.
I fear that all these widgets are getting away from what the TV should really be about: Displaying the best quality picture possible.
I haven't had any hands on time with these widgets but I have a feeling that some, maybe most, of them are poorly implemented. Some of these widgets are being taken from website where you would use a keyboard and mouse and shoehorning them onto the TV where you have a number pad and directional pad. I haven't used any of these widgets but I would bet that its not the greatest experience. I would just open up my laptop or use an iPhone, but that's just my opinion.
I care about the aspects that affect quality. Contrast, thinness, Hz, resolution, are all aspects of quality I like. I like high resolution, it helps with the ability to create sharper pictures. Contrast effects clarity. Hz effects how well images get processed before it even hits the visual parts of hte display. And Thinness effects all aspects of hte technology, and how well it fits into my lifestyle and my home. What I really don't care about is having a display that acts as it's own computer system. I have a far better setup for that than my TV.
Maybe it's just me but when I have my TV use the 120hz processing it just looks like everything is sped up too fast. I think it looks like complete garbage and really doesn't contribute at all to a better experience.
yes yes yes!
I agree, mostly. With any kind of standard-def content or low-quality HD, I agree completely. I won't use it on my cable company's "HD" channels (typically running at 3-4meg), and I won't use it on a DVD. But when I'm using the BluRay I think it looks quite fantastic. I never have it turned up to the "high" setting though, I tend to leave it on 120hz low and occasionally medium.
BTW, I'm on a Samsung LN52A650.
Widgets. I have a computer in the same room my tv is in, I don't need to have that stuff on my tv.
I don't care about Widgets or 3D
There should be no features in a screen unrelated to displaying the picture. Screens last *so much* longer than all the equipment that you'll likely be plugging into them that you don't want to waste money on integrated features that will be useless before the screen is even a tenth of the way through its life.
I think you've forgotten to add the streaming ability fro Netflix or Vudu or Amazon VOD. I think this will be a major driver of sales for TVs too. If a TV has these at the same price of the TVs without it, it's definitely something that would influence my purchase.
Is there an echo in here... in here...
3D should really be on this list... I really really don't care about 3D. I don't care about 3D so much that I care enough to avoid it at all cost. I didn't pay to get lasik just to have to put on some stupid glasses to watch tv. I really don't like this trend of every big movie comming out in 3D. More often than not its just distracting and adds very little to the movie. I guess hollywood and the big TV manafactures found their next big gimmick.
-Sean
Not mentioned: network connectivity (DLNA, Amazon, Netflix)
One of the choices should have been.
Which HDTV feature is MOST likely to influence your buying decision?
So what was in "something else"
I'd be interested in how many people aren't interested in 3d.