Antenna Viewers May Lose TV Channels With Video Codec Change

navychop

navychop

Member of the Month - July 2014!
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 20, 2005
54,852
20,207
Northern VA
Glad you like it. Take care of it and make offerings to the appropriate gods, because they don’t seem to be making 3D sets much anymore. I’m sure in another few decades it will be back.
 
harshness

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
17,436
3,278
Salem, OR
Samsung's 2015 JS9500 series is still the ultimate TV, because it has
The JS9500 is clearly a prosumer model. The MSRP for a 65" model was around $5,000!
-Stereoscopic 3D support at up to 4K resolution. I still watch 3D Blu-ray remuxes and play PC games in 4K 3D on it to this day.
As if the market was flooded with desirable 3D titles.
-HDR support and the brightness to back it up with its FALD lighting instead of being edge-lit like most of the garbage TVs that came out in that era. It still keeps up with the brightness levels of most modern TV models except the most high-end models you don't see for sale in Walmart
Absent support for Dolby Vision and up-to-date HDMI and HDCP specifications, there's some serious trade-offs.
-Curved screen is more immersive than flat. The curve is a fantastic feature to have in a TV when you have a proper set up with properly set up furniture that is directly centered in front of the TV.
The public doesn't seem to agree. This also exacerbates viewing angle issues with its IPS display.
-Handles RGB 4:4:4 4K @ 60 Hz input fine
-10-bit panel
Most better TVs today do that at 120Hz.
-Game Mode that works well and delivers some of the lowest latency of any TV model produced in its era
One should never employ the term "in its era" when touting something as timeless.
The model is now 7 years old and I have zero desire whatsoever to upgrade to a new display that lacks 3D technology. There are far too many movies and video games out there that look absolutely amazing in 3D. I can't imagine watching something like Avatar, Gravity, or the MCU in pancake mode. These newer TVs that don't have 3D support are absolutely ridiculous.
Whether it was 3D glasses or the lack of compelling content, an overwhelming majority of the buying public clearly decided that the trade-offs weren't worth it.
It's crazy to me that new TV models are actually downgrades over models that came out 7 years ago.
Other than 3D and being curved (of arguable value), a modern QLED or OLED TV perhaps surpasses in most popular respects.

If Samsung had delivered on their Evolution Kits and not decided to be hardnosed about Dolby Vision, the story would be a little happier but they didn't.
 
VictoriaFTA

VictoriaFTA

SatelliteGuys Pro
Sep 20, 2018
179
211
Chicago
As if the market was flooded with desirable 3D titles.

Most of the best movies of the last 12 years are best experienced in 3D.

Absent support for Dolby Vision and up-to-date HDMI and HDCP specifications, there's some serious trade-offs.

Dolby Vision is a placebo. The improvement over HDR10 is barely noticeable and in a double blind test even most videophiles wouldn't even be able to tell the difference. It sure as hell isn't worth giving up stereoscopic 3D support for.

The public doesn't seem to agree. This also exacerbates viewing angle issues with its IPS display.

Normies sit around on badly placed furniture watching their televisions mounted up too high on the wall with the crappy built in speakers and constant distractions going on all around them. What's your point? For those who want a proper setup with seating positions at an optimal viewing distance and directly centered in front of the screen you can't beat the curve.

Most better TVs today do that at 120Hz.

Again, who cares? I have a 240Hz monitor and while there is *some* improvement going from 60 to 120 FPS, it is not nearly as drastic as 30 to 60 FPS. It's worth sacrificing 120 FPS for stereoscopic 3D.

If you're going to play games in pancake mode then you should be playing PC games on the Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 monitor anyway -- the 32:9 aspect ratio combined with up to 2,000 nits of brightness in HDR mode easily makes it the best display for PC gaming ever made.

One should never employ the term "in its era" when touting something as timeless.

Nope, because "in its era," TVs had terrible input latency. This display was different and unique for its era because it had very low input latency. Many of these manufacturers' TVs have since improved on the input latency front, but it's still better than a lot of TVs currently on the market.

Whether it was 3D glasses or the lack of compelling content, an overwhelming majority of the buying public clearly decided that the trade-offs weren't worth it.

That's a false narrative too. 3D was rather well adopted in the early 2010's before 4K came along and the display manufacturers conspired with Hollywood studios to kill off 3D in the home. Display manufacturers wanted to shill higher resolutions and HDR and Hollywood studios wanted an exclusive tech you could only get by going to theaters. Anyone with a nice 3D capable TV had no reason to shell out for a movie ticket when they could watch the 3D Blu-ray instead, and Hollywood did not like that.

Other than 3D and being curved (of arguable value), a modern QLED or OLED TV perhaps surpasses in most popular respects.

MP3s are more popular than FLAC, DVDs and bitrate starved HD streaming is more popular than Blu-ray, sh!tty bitrate starved re-encoded a billion times MPEG-2 cable TV channels are more popular than backhauls and the H.264 master feeds on C-band. iTunes is more popular than HDtracks, and McDonald's is more popular than Culver's. WWE is the top rated TV show and "90 Day Fiance" pulls better ratings than scripted TV shows. Bitcoin is more popular than Monero and bastardized "American style" hard shell tacos are more popular than authentic street tacos. The Switch is the most popular console right now.

I couldn't give a damn about what's most popular. What's most popular is usually sh*t.
 
harshness

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
17,436
3,278
Salem, OR
Most of the best movies of the last 12 years are best experienced in 3D.
Clearly availability isn't related to goodness. According to Empire magazine, all but three of the twenty best 3D movies of all time were released more than 12 years ago. The most recent to appear in the Top 20 was Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse (2018). Over half of the Top 20 were animated. Three of the movies were from the mid-1950s.
Dolby Vision is a placebo.
You could even more easily say that 3D is a placebo given how little of the best 3D movies were "filmed" in 3D (as opposed to rendered or synthesized).
The improvement over HDR10 is barely noticeable and in a double blind test even most videophiles wouldn't even be able to tell the difference.
This is clearly made up.
For those who want a proper setup with seating positions at an optimal viewing distance and directly centered in front of the screen you can't beat the curve.
How many theater seats fit in the "sweet spot" of a 65" curved IPS TV?
Nope, because "in its era," TVs had terrible input latency.
Yep, because we're no longer "in its era". You're promoting your candidate a whole generation later. rtings gives the JS9500 an 8.0 overall score.
That's a false narrative too. 3D was rather well adopted in the early 2010's before 4K came along and the display manufacturers conspired with Hollywood studios to kill off 3D in the home.
And here we are several years later and many of the 3D movies don't make it to home video as 3D.
I couldn't give a damn about what's most popular.
A case has been made that you don't care about what's good -- just as long as it is 3D.
 
  • Like
Reactions: primestar31
John2021

John2021

SatelliteGuys Pro
Oct 28, 2021
524
210
Los angeles
False.

Samsung's 2015 JS9500 series is still the ultimate TV, because it has

-Stereoscopic 3D support at up to 4K resolution. I still watch 3D Blu-ray remuxes and play PC games in 4K 3D on it to this day.
-HDR support and the brightness to back it up with its FALD lighting instead of being edge-lit like most of the garbage TVs that came out in that era. It still keeps up with the brightness levels of most modern TV models except the most high-end models you don't see for sale in Walmart
-Curved screen is more immersive than flat. The curve is a fantastic feature to have in a TV when you have a proper set up with properly set up furniture that is directly centered in front of the TV.
-Handles RGB 4:4:4 4K @ 60 Hz input fine
-10-bit panel
-Game Mode that works well and delivers some of the lowest latency of any TV model produced in its era

The model is now 7 years old and I have zero desire whatsoever to upgrade to a new display that lacks 3D technology. There are far too many movies and video games out there that look absolutely amazing in 3D. I can't imagine watching something like Avatar, Gravity, or the MCU in pancake mode. These newer TVs that don't have 3D support are absolutely ridiculous. It's crazy to me that new TV models are actually downgrades over models that came out 7 years ago.
Isn't 3D like dead like a while ago
 
navychop

navychop

Member of the Month - July 2014!
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 20, 2005
54,852
20,207
Northern VA
They didn’t just stick a fork in it. They ran a stake into it, dropped a garlic garland on it, and put a crucifix on top.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John2021
John2021

John2021

SatelliteGuys Pro
Oct 28, 2021
524
210
Los angeles
There's usually a release a month give or take. Many of them are 3D for the sake of 3D rather than critically acclaimed films.
Last 3D blu ray I bought was avatar years ago. The tv don't support 3d but I noticed my 4k disc spinner does
 
VictoriaFTA

VictoriaFTA

SatelliteGuys Pro
Sep 20, 2018
179
211
Chicago
Clearly availability isn't related to goodness. According to Empire magazine, all but three of the twenty best 3D movies of all time were released more than 12 years ago. The most recent to appear in the Top 20 was Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse (2018). Over half of the Top 20 were animated. Three of the movies were from the mid-1950s.

I don't care about the opinions of some boomer magazine. Why are britbongs judging something produced by a different country anyway? Like they're the movie experts. Might as well have Canadians judging the best tacos.

42 out of the 50 highest-grossing films of all time are available in, and greatly enhanced by, 3D. Including the #1 movie, of which the 3D was the primary draw. Why would I want to watch Avatar flat?


Buying a TV that can't properly display the best version of 42 out of the biggest 50 films of the 21st century is a non-starter.

You could even more easily say that 3D is a placebo given how little of the best 3D movies were "filmed" in 3D (as opposed to rendered or synthesized).
It's called post-production. Most of what you see in the final product isn't "filmed." This is a ridiculous argument.

CG is a placebo given how little of the best CG movies were "filmed" in CG.

How many theater seats fit in the "sweet spot" of a 65" curved IPS TV?

Who cares? Who has a theater in their house? Why would I want 50 strangers coming over to my house to watch a movie?

And here we are several years later and many of the 3D movies don't make it to home video as 3D.

A case has been made that you don't care about what's good -- just as long as it is 3D.

It's already been established that the normie cattle are woefully ignorant of how much better their movies could be if they were to see them in 3D. Popularity != quality. I made my point so comprehensively with my examples I see you flat out ignored them with your retort, indicating that the argument was so strong you knew you had nothing to refute it. We don't need to retread this ground again.
 
harshness

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
17,436
3,278
Salem, OR
I don't care about the opinions of some boomer magazine. Why are britbongs judging something produced by a different country anyway? Like they're the movie experts. Might as well have Canadians judging the best tacos.
You seem to be quite the bigot. Anyone that doesn't use a 3D TV to watch all their movies in 3D is a "normie" and people from other countries can't handle arithmetic.
42 out of the 50 highest-grossing films of all time are available in, and greatly enhanced by, 3D. Including the #1 movie, of which the 3D was the primary draw.
Primarily because most of the population never had a 3D TV and if they saw a 3D film, it was in a theater where people weren't huddled in front of a mid-size television. I enjoyed most of Avatar but the only movie I've ever seen in 3D is Captain EO (and it wasn't "all that" for me).

It seems pretty likely that Top Gun: Maverick is likely to breeze past Avatar so I wonder how you precious JS9500 does with IMAX format.
As if IMDB is the be-all and end-all of ratings or collecting of box office receipts numbers and certainly doesn't contemplate what percentage of the population has or continues to view those films in 3D versus "flat".
Buying a TV that can't properly display the best version of 42 out of the biggest 50 films of the 21st century is a non-starter.
For you it probably is but for the rest of the population, they don't seem to give a tinker's dam. Clearly 3D isn't the make or break attribute that you insist that it must be.
It's called post-production. Most of what you see in the final product isn't "filmed." This is a ridiculous argument.
Labeling things seems to be your shtick. It doesn't make your arguments any more credible.
CG is a placebo given how little of the best CG movies were "filmed" in CG.
It certainly doesn't contribute to the "physics" of the movie in the overall "suspension of disbelief" if the effects are gone overboard to pop out of the screen.
Who cares? Who has a theater in their house?
A viewing party of three or larger could be a problem for such a TV. Of course if you have bunk beds stacked in front of the TV, it might be easier. Perhaps your household is relatively small so the sweet spot isn't a problem.
It's already been established that the normie cattle are woefully ignorant of how much better their movies could be if they were to see them in 3D.
If they're uncomfortable wearing 3D glasses, is it really better? While a non-HDR/WCG TV can do about 34% of the visible palette, the JS9500 hits just 54%. Do you insist that the color reproduction isn't important? Perhaps that's why there are so many animated films in the 3D list.
Popularity != quality.
I submit that there's another important inequality: 3D < must have.
 
navychop

navychop

Member of the Month - July 2014!
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 20, 2005
54,852
20,207
Northern VA
I seem to recall a bit about UHD potentially enabling much better 3D, even without glasses. No more headaches.

But it seems the bloom was off the rose for 3D by then and there was no business case to pursue that technology.

FWIW, I wish my Sony 900 supported 3D, even though I have little interest in 3D. I’d have at least given it a try at home. Poor experience in the theatre- bad seating.

And now we’ll never see the Ronco Holosuite.
 
D

dsspredator

Member
Jul 27, 2007
5
0
A couple years ago, CHCH-TV in Hamilton Ontario tested a 1080p MPEG4 sub channel.
It only showed a test pattern.

Out of my 5 TVs, only Samsung would scan in the channel.
Not LG or Panasonic.
 
harshness

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
17,436
3,278
Salem, OR
Out of my 5 TVs, only Samsung would scan in the channel.
Not LG or Panasonic.
It typically comes down to when the TV was manufactured. If it was built before 2008-9, there's not a great chance and even if the hardware could handle AVC, the firmware may not.
 

Similar threads

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Latest posts

Top