Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment on upgrading old HDTVs (Score 1) 418

My dad bought an early LCD from Sharp (circa 2005). Today, it doesn't play nicely with the newest HDMI variants (notably, it doesn't do HDMI-CEC). It also has annoyingly high black levels. He's thinking about upgrading. I've got a high-end Sony from 2008. It's much better on the black levels and supports HDMI-CEC, but dark colors are a bit greenish. I won't bother upgrading unless the TV dies.

While the video focused on 4K (is content available, etc.), a better question would be whether video quality or any other features on current 1080p sets are any better than older 1080p sets. The answer seems to be that:

- Black levels of LCDs have improved steadily over the years, particularly on the high-end back-lit (rather than edge-lit) LED sets.

- If you've got a *really* old LCD (early 2000's), then you also have some amount of visual blurring because the pixels couldn't change state fast enough. This problem is completely gone with modern panels.

- Newer sets tend to have highly reflective glass surfaces rather than the matte surfaces that used to be more common. This can be amazingly distracting in a brightly lit room, seeing yourself reflecting in the screen when it goes dark.

- Newer sets have lots of fancy Internet features (Netflix, etc.), but you can retrofit those onto an old set with all sorts of gadgets (TiVo, AppleTV, GoogleTV, Roku, most Bluray players, etc.). And those aftermarket gadgets will tend to do a better job of updating themselves.

- Newer sets with LED backlights use less power than the CCFL sets, but not enough that it's worth dumping a bunch of money into a new set. On the the other hand, LEDs also last a whole lot longer, and when they age they slowly dim, versus CCFLs that just up and die.

- Newer sets are much bigger for a given price. If you were price-limited five years ago, you can now afford something much, much bigger.

- Newer sets have all sorts of fancy motion interpolation that tries to take a 24Hz source movie and create fake frames between the real ones. The resulting look feels more like video than like film. You might like this, you might hate it. It's a polarizing topic.

- Newer sets are much thinner, which means that their sound quality is often surprisingly awful. If you're already using an external sound system of some sort, you don't care, but at a bare minimum you'll be wanting a "sound bar".

Comment very detailed answer to your question (Score 2) 402

As it happens, I wrote a long document, initially for my friends, but others in this same situation might find it helpful.

http://www.cs.rice.edu/~dwallach/step-up-camera2009.html (which I updated a month ago for the most current cameras)

In short, there's no one-size-fits-all answer. For many people, a high-end compact camera like a Canon S100 or Panasonic LX5 will give them everything they want and then some. For others, the mirrorless compact cameras will be more attractive than a big DSLR. And there's no rule that says you're not allowed to own multiple cameras.

Slashdot Top Deals

I'm always looking for a new idea that will be more productive than its cost. -- David Rockefeller

Working...