Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Displays Privacy Television

Ask Slashdot: Affordable Large HD/UHD/4K "Stupid" Screens? 330

New submitter LOGINS SUC (713291) writes Truly in the first-world problems category, I've been looking for large format (>55") HD/UHD screens for home entertainment. In light of the recent Samsung big-brother monitoring and advertisement injection concerns, does any reputable manufacturer still make "stupid" TVs? I don't want to pay for all the WiFi, apps, cameras, or microphones. I don't need it to have speakers. And at this point, I don't even care if it has the TV receiver functionality. All this stuff leads to vendor lock-in or is well on the path to obsolescence by the time I purchase the device. I prefer all of this non-visual functionality be handled by devices better suited to the purpose and I don't want to pay for screens including these widgets I have no intention of ever using, at all.

I've searched all the normal retail outlets. If I find anything, they are wildly expensive. "Computer monitors" fit the bill but are almost all 55") LCDs in the sub-$3,000 range anymore? Are projectors the last bastion of visual purity for home entertainment?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ask Slashdot: Affordable Large HD/UHD/4K "Stupid" Screens?

Comments Filter:
  • Vizio P Series (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    http://www.vizio.com/p-series

    • by pr0nbot ( 313417 )

      These appear to have wi-fi, so probably not as dumb as one would like.

      • Re:Vizio P Series (Score:5, Informative)

        by jeffmeden ( 135043 ) on Thursday February 12, 2015 @01:33PM (#49039257) Homepage Journal

        Presumably by leaving it unconfigured or intentionally misconfigured, you could trick it into not being very "smart" at all. I would only consider smart TVs with mandatory connectivity (of which I don't know of any) as really falling outside the acceptable criteria here. If you dont like the "smart" features don't freaking use them. Rip the button off the remote and cover it with a bit of black electrical tape. Whatever floats your boat. However, the features come from a $10 ARM SoC which every vendor is building in nowadays since it really doesn't increase their cost much. In fact, as the question suggests, making special TVs without these features is now more expensive since more people want them than don't.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Buying a smart TV already tells the manufacturers that they're selling and make more. Specifically buying non-smart tvs is one less smart tv sold sending the right message.
          We're already at the tipping point that manufacturers have pushed smart tvs so hard, people didn't even know they were buying a smart tv and haven't used any of their features, but it's giving manufacturers the excuse that they're selling so they make more.
          Your "solution" makes it worse.

          • it only works that way sometimes. Manufactures probably push "smart" TVs because an onboard SoC probably adds an existing $10-20 to a $3000 TV, while opening on massive new revenue channels via mining your data. Also be very careful when the incentive to act unethically is high.
        • Not to mention that having a SoC probably enables a more responsive UI for the non-smart portion of the TV.

        • Re:Vizio P Series (Score:5, Informative)

          by jafac ( 1449 ) on Thursday February 12, 2015 @04:50PM (#49041549) Homepage

          It could be argued (and has) that "Smart TV" features, are a value-add for the manufacturer, not the consumer. (because those very features are used to generate revenue, and are not particularly useful to the end-user).

          The only real benefit to the end-user is if they're too dumb or lazy to hook up a Roku or other cheap streaming device (or whatever). In fact; I found my Samsung's menus and apps to be so ridiculously slow and poorly designed, that those features are basically unusable. (example: get up in the morning, turn on TV to watch something while I eat breakfast: TV takes at least 60 seconds before Netflix app can even be selected (please wait, the TV is starting up), then another 30 seconds to START the program, then another 30 seconds to display, pick, and enter the profile - OMG-Teh LAG!; we're all used to Netflix taking about 5-10 seconds to fire up the stream of your selected program, plus the remote is shitty, is very sensitive about direction pointing, weird button placement, poor battery life. . . if I instead use the Roku, it's literally 5 seconds to get into where I'm picking the program, the remote has a simple, intelligent layout, and doesn't particularly care if it's pointed perfectly at the device).

          As far as "Smart TV" features go, I think it's just this year's "3d" (which, also, nobody wanted.)

    • Re:Vizio P Series (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DickBreath ( 207180 ) on Thursday February 12, 2015 @01:29PM (#49039219) Homepage
      The link you pointed to says . . .

      A revolutionary V6 Processor features a quad-core GPU and dual-core CPU for maximum speed and performance. Enjoy faster usability, quicker TV start-up time and menu navigation, increased image rendering speed and a better Smart TV experience.

      Oh, God, please save us from having a Smart TV 'experience'. Otherwise known as a Telescreen [wikipedia.org].

    • Re:Vizio P Series (Score:4, Informative)

      by DRMShill ( 1157993 ) on Thursday February 12, 2015 @02:31PM (#49039921)

      On top of this not being a "stupid" screen, this product is also unsuitable as a pc monitor. It uses 4:2:0 chroma subsampling which makes text look terrible.

      http://www.geeks3d.com/2014120... [geeks3d.com]

  • Projector (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gameboyhippo ( 827141 ) on Thursday February 12, 2015 @12:54PM (#49038829) Journal

    Just use a projector. It's inexpensive and typically has no features other than projecting.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rastan ( 43536 ) *

      A projector has a very low contrast, because what you see when you turn it off (the usually white wall) is it's blackest black. This is a huge difference to modern TVs.

      • I have a projector that I project onto a very white surface,

        Black is fine, because the BRIGHTEST aspects of the image are so bright that the non-illuminated parts of the screen are, in fact, quite black.

        If I bring a totally white piece of paper in a cave, and shine a light away from it, will it glow like the su? Of course not.

        Modern projectors are usually pretty bright. And you can of course easily provide some darker surface to project upon if you really feel it is an issue.

      • You're doing it wrong. Most people watch projected images with the lights dimmed... like at the local cinema.

    • I also use a projector. 143" HD screen for under $3k. And you don't need an expensive screen to get good image quality. There are special paints such as Goo Systems that can make any wall a high contrast and high gain screen.
    • by sjbe ( 173966 )

      Just use a projector. It's inexpensive and typically has no features other than projecting.

      "Inexpensive"? Umm... no. To get a decent set up in my house I'd have to ceiling mount the projector. That means punching holes in my ceiling and bringing in an electrician to run the wires. I'd have to put some sort of screen on one of my walls. I'd have to spend quite a bit of money for a projector with adequate brightness and spend a fair bit of time tinkering with it. And then if I decide to rearrange the room I'm pretty much stuck with what I've got. All of that costs significant $$$ unless you

    • An inexpensive UHD projector? Where?

  • Volume matters. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Z00L00K ( 682162 ) on Thursday February 12, 2015 @12:55PM (#49038835) Homepage Journal

    You may actually have to pay more for a large screen without all the WiFi and stuff because the production volume for them is a lot smaller.

    Live with the fact that you get "extras" for almost no cost.

    • This is sort of true for home audio as well -- surround sound receivers are cheap. Surround-sound preamps, though, tend to be very pricey, even though a very basic preamp would just be the receiver sans the final amplification.
  • Was get a 70" smart TV, and not use any of the smart TV features. It seemed to work out alright.
    • Same here. I picked up a 60" LCD TV that had a smattering of "smart" features, and I never use them. Simply don't allow your TV to be hooked up to your internal network. Besides which, the built-in stuff is typically horrid (badly designed, terrible performance), and some companies actually have the gall to show ads when you're using the smart features - not to mention the latest gaff of sending your private conversations out over the internet. Screw that.

      BTW, you'll often find that TVs are sold in seve

      • Not always an option. Others have posted about the newer crop of TVs displaying warning/error messages for up to a minute on power up if they can't connect to the internet, and one guy mentioned a TV that won't work at all unless connected so you can accept the TOS.

  • by Karmashock ( 2415832 ) on Thursday February 12, 2015 @12:56PM (#49038853)

    You can buy black projector screens around 100" for about 500 dollars or so. And that means you can watch your projector with the lights on.

  • Dumb, not stupid. (Score:5, Informative)

    by StikyPad ( 445176 ) on Thursday February 12, 2015 @01:01PM (#49038907) Homepage
  • Seiki (Score:5, Informative)

    by Yakasha ( 42321 ) on Thursday February 12, 2015 @01:10PM (#49039023) Homepage
    Straight up, you get what you pay for. So don't expect some amazing TV. But I've been using a 39" Seiki 4k @ work and it is good enough. Cost a "whopping" $280.

    Their 65" 4k (30hz @ 4k resolution) [amazon.com] is now on Amazon for $999. The 39" has worked just fine for me, so I imagine the 65" is comparable in terms of quality. (It does have 4 stars on 600+ reviews)

    • Seiki +2 (Score:5, Informative)

      by gavron ( 1300111 ) on Thursday February 12, 2015 @02:34PM (#49039965)

      I also second the Seiki 39". Got mine from Amazon.com when it was $400. Now it's 2/3 of that.

      On my NUC it actually uses the 4K resolution but I rarely use it as a monitor because of the low refresh rate (15Hz) at that resolution.

      It is an AWESOME TV!!! I have it hooked up to
      - Roku3
      - Google Chromecast
      - Amazon Fire Stick

      If I had to find downsides it would be
      - no "discrete code" to switch to a particular input. One selects "source" then scrolls up or down from the current source to the eventual source input. This makes things tougher for scene-remotes.

      Ehud

    • I've got some Seiki 4k TVs, and I'd agree that their good for the money and have minimal features like the OP asked for. The 39" and 55" work out of the box perfectly with the HDMI port on an Apple MacBookPro.

      There's one glaring problem I've had though, and that's with the built-in sound. The volume control responds to almost any input on a Charter cable box remote, usually by raising the volume. I have to keep punching it back down as I use the remote. Since the OP doesn't want sound, it might be OK for hi

    • I have this model in 50". For the price I don't regret it at all, but I'm not sure how people are using these things as computer monitors. Mine makes a buzzing when it's on, which is fine if I'm watching TV because you can't hear it over the TV audio. In a quiet room though it would be very irritating.
  • by Jason Pollock ( 45537 ) on Thursday February 12, 2015 @01:18PM (#49039107) Homepage

    You don't need to buy a dumb TV. All you need to avoid is plugging it into a network.

    If you don't plug your home theatre equipment into your network, it can't call home. Done.

    • by solios ( 53048 ) on Thursday February 12, 2015 @01:35PM (#49039279) Homepage

      This is where Comcast building wifi hotspots into their cable modems becomes pretty damned insidious - how long until devices like this are "pre-authorized" to automatically connect to the mothership through any available wireless connection?

      Imagine if a Samsung TV automatically phoned home through your neighbor's Comcast wifi/modem link not because you enabled it but because Samsung had paid Comcast to allow its devices through. And of course this behavior is on by default and block it, thanks to some timely lobbying, is now a violation of the first amendment (or something equally deranged-but-feasible vis-a-vis corporate personhood).

      • This is where Comcast building wifi hotspots into their cable modems becomes pretty damned insidious - how long until devices like this are "pre-authorized" to automatically connect to the mothership through any available wireless connection?

        Agreed but then that's part of the reasons why I own my own cable modem> It does not have built in wifi so Comcast can't pull any hijinks and it costs me less since I'm not paying any rental fees. Also fortunately I live far enough away from my neighbors that no wifi signals but my own are within range of my house.

      • by craighansen ( 744648 ) on Thursday February 12, 2015 @02:53PM (#49040219) Journal

        Or if they put in a cell-phone data link, like the non-Android Kindles (and some Android Kindles) and preauthorize the data services.

  • unbundled hardware is expensive because it's expensive to make. Bundled features such as a tv tuner, voice monitoring, tivo, etc., aren't value-added consumer perks, they're incentives for the consumer to part with their privacy and in some cases, their hard earned on an ongoing basis through channel subscriptions and TV licensing. Without those ongoing incentives, there is little to persuade retailers to sell you the hardware. I found the same with laptops. No retailer wanted to sell me a laptop without Wi

  • Either in the settings by turning it off, or by putting bogus login information in. Or you can block the TVs MAC address at the router.

    No wifi, no networking, no smart functionality.

  • The second-to-last sentence of the post is so mangled, I have no idea what you are saying (asking?).

    "Computer monitors" fit the bill but are almost all 55") LCDs in the sub-$3,000 range anymore?

  • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Thursday February 12, 2015 @01:35PM (#49039277)

    I don't know why you care, since you can always just not use the smart features, but if you insist you must not have them professional monitors fit the bill. NEC makes the ones I generally spec out. Very well built, high brightness, rated for 24/7 operation, etc. You pay for it, of course, since they are commercial grade rather than residential grade.

  • Please let's start calling them what they are.

    A Telescreen [wikipedia.org].

    Please stop calling them a Smart TV. That implies something positive about them over ordinary TVs. Also don't qualify dumb TVs as dumb. It is actually smart to prefer an ordinary TV. Let's put the negative focus on Smart TVs, or rather Telescreens, as it should be.

    I'll take the "smart" part in a separate box thank you. This allows competition from any vendor. The 'smart' box becomes obsolete much sooner than the TV and can be easily a
  • If you are looking for a dumb 4K display that is above PC monitor size and cheaper or even the same price as a comparable "smart" tv, then the answer is probably no. The only real options you have are A) get the smart TV and never connect it to your network or B) buy a commercial grade display. Option B is going to be much more expensive than Option A. Well I guess there is always option C) Contract with a manufacturer to create a private brand line of your own. Pretty sure option C is not going to sca
  • For each "SMART" TV they typically have the same model with none of the "SMART" features for cheaper. I don't need or want any of the smart features, so I never buy Samsung's SMART TVs but I have bought the non-SMART equivalent. Many people seem to think ahh a "SMART" brand TV for more money and don't realize that they are paying for "SMART" features that they never had plans to use. SMART just sounds like a better TV.....
  • Is it just me? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Thursday February 12, 2015 @02:26PM (#49039853)

    I have EXACTLY the same issue with cars.

    I really don't want (to buy, maintain, or the extra weight, complexity and/or immediate outdatedness of) LCD touchscreens, navigation, parking aids, multimedia systems, blind spot monitors, voice control, OnStar, 57 airbags, hybrid technology, my car connecting to its manufacturer, etc etc.
    These "features" are pretty much all literally unavoidable in all cars these days.

    I ESPECIALLY don't EVER want a car that drives itself.

    I wish someone would just make a new version what used to pass for a sporty car about 20-30 years ago. I.e.a simple, ergonomic cabin that uses physical controls, analog dials, a good motor and a well-sorted suspension, all without the need for any onboard computers at all. I say this as a software engineer, even I know there are some places that are better off without any technology and computers, and the car is one of the best examples I can think of.

    • by dfm3 ( 830843 )

      These "features" are pretty much all literally unavoidable in all cars these days.

      True for some models, but not for all, despite what dealers want you to think. The reason that fully loaded vehicles are pushed so heavily is because it means more money for the dealerships, who can charge a ridiculous premium for each extra feature. Even worse is the practice of bundling features into a "package" with one feature you want and another half dozen that you don't. If you aren't set on a specific model and can find a dealer who is willing to work with you (none of the usual, "I can't get one of

    • Do you think you'd like driving a small pickup truck? They're about as basic as you can get, especially if you get it with a 5-speed stickshift, and you get better fuel economy, too.
  • Wait for HDR (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Stele ( 9443 ) on Thursday February 12, 2015 @02:45PM (#49040103) Homepage

    Don't buy one now. High-dynamic-range television is coming, and a consortium of TV suppliers was announced at COMDEX recently. They will work together on coming up with a single standard for HDR. Netflix has also promised to deliver HDR content by year's end. It would be silly to buy a 4K panel that can only process rec-709 now when HDR is right around the corner.

  • by retroworks ( 652802 ) on Thursday February 12, 2015 @03:01PM (#49040319) Homepage Journal
    If you decide you want "smart", add a Roku.
  • Maybe around 32" can be enough?

    I question the need for a giant monitor (55", 65" etc.) in the first place. I don't even think they look good as you're looking at LCD motion artifacts, other LCD failings and excess brightness beamed at your eyes.

    There's now a 40" PC monitor even, Philips BDM4065UC. Just what you're looking for with plenty of inputs except that according to the review I've just looked up, the scaling of HD sources is a bit crap. It shows content without processing it and has low input lag. Pe

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...