What are the benefits of a curved TV?

Where are you getting your information from? Apparently not from people that actually own curve screens. So just ignore the people that know... 'Seems' like you have no idea what you're talking about...

People who would own a bed sized curved TV surely have their own unique perspective. Noone else´s would really be relevant.

You're making it sound like you know better. But yet, have said nothing to provide any type of info. Just trolling. So what is your take on curved screens Mr.KIA? Or don't you own one yourself. Thereby making your post completely ignorant, irrelevant, and useless, for a site that is there to provide insight and information.

And no, I don't own a curved tv. But I'm not claiming to know anything about curved tv's.

I totally agree with you...had a 60" Panasonic plasma for 5 years and really don't see any advantage to the new curved screens....the OLED's look awfully nice but it's far from 'night and day'....I've still got people that come to my house and marvel at my plasma,...and can't believe that it's from 2011!!
I'd like to find out just why the plasmas suddenly became so obsolete?

My admittedly vague memory as a discussion starter:

1) they were expensive to make and therefore expensive to buy
2) they use a lot more energy than, for instance, today's LED technology, call that expensive to run.

Apparently the majority of buyers "voted" against them and so they became even more "exclusive" and in the end manufacturers decided to build and sell what people want to buy - call it a repetition of the story at the end of which Sony gave up the superior Betamax and started selling VHS units.

Plasma got into trouble right of the bat, because of screen burn in - and despite their claims that this has been improved over time, has not stopped the user reviews claiming that they still lose a large percentage of brightness in less than three years. I don't know about you, but I'm not paying for a TV that goes to pot in less than three years. I've had my LED DLP every since 2008, and it is as bright as the day I bought it, and the colors will still knock your eyes out of the ball park.

My biggest complaint about Plasma TVs is the super super shiny screens. I can't even make out what is on the screen for the horrible reflection. This may have been another reason LG though the curved screen would work, because it would help lessen or otherwse mitigate this problem. What I can't understand is why they can't simply put a thin frost on the screen to get rid of the glare that way. That is what Kodak put on old movie projectors way back since the 1950s, and the stupid TV industry still doesn't get it. I can see why they may not want to do that with an LCD, but for OLED and Plasma there just simply is no excuse!!!

I don't know where you got your information but plasma TVs do not lose their brightness after 3 years. I've had my 42" Panasonic TH42PZ77U plasma for 8 years and it still works great with no signs of dimming. I also have the 60" version of the 2014 Value Electronics HDTV shootout winner, the Samsung PN60F8500 and it's been great for over 2 years. In fact plasmas were rated to last longer than both LED and CCFL LCD TVs. See here -> http://www.cnet.com/news/how-long-do-tvs-last-morrisons-mailbag/

Let's say plasma TVs only last 50,000 hours which according to the above article is the low end of the lifespan range that the manufacturers published. You would have to use the TV 24 hours a day, 365 days a year for over 5.7 years straight to reach 50,000 hours. (For the math challenged 24 hours/day * 365 days/year * 5.7 years = 49,932 hours.) Let's say you "only" watch 8 hours of TV per day then you can triple that 5.7 years lifespan to be over 17 years.

Also CNET put out this article comparing rear projection, plasma and LCD TVs<br> and they said rear projection had the worse lifespan of all 3 types of TVs.

While burn-in can be an issue with plasma TVs, this CNET article about plasma burn-in<br> says "actual burn-in is highly unlikely and extremely difficult" plus the newer plasma TVs had anti burn in technology and programs to remove it if it ever occurred.

Lastly, while some plasmas did have glossy reflective screens, neither of my plasmas have them so I don't have bad light reflection issues.

I came here to read opinions about curved TVs and then I saw misinformation about plasma TVs that I wanted to correct.

1) Before they were discontinued, plasma TVs between 50" and 65" were less expensive than high quality LED TVs. I'm talking about between 2008 and 2014. Even still the picture quality of the best LED TVs didn't come close to plasma. In the 2014 Value Electronics HDTV shootout, the 55-inch LG 55EC9300 OLED and Samsung PN64F8500 plasma were declared co-winners. See here -> http://www.cnet.com/news/lg-wins-value-electronics-shootout-2014/
2) The cost of the extra amount of electricity used by plasma TVs only comes out to a few dollars extra a month. It's certainly not expensive to run a plasma TV. See here -> http://www.cnet.com/news/what-you-need-to-know-about-tv-power-consumption/

Not that it matters if they are not making them any more. I visted people who had 55" plasmas, that were so hot, it made the living room unbearable even with the air contitioning on. Even the people that didn't seem to notice that, had problems with other home theater devices overheating because of all that was given off in close proximity to the set.

My BIGGEST gripe was the mirror finish of the screen and the impossible to ignore glare that it put out. I'd rather had a Laser Vue Mitsubishi than that. At least a DPL has a frosted screen so you don't have to put up with it. My Samsung LED DLP is so bright, that it beats even having the sun shining directly on the screen. It isn't distracting enough for me to complain about!! Plasmas were for very dark windowless theater rooms in the basement, if you ask me.

I still read reviews on the last sets that were made that screen burn in was STILL a problem, despite all the claims that it wasn't. The second worse problem was the tendency for the Samsung plasma sets to blow the power supply -- and always AFTER the warranty, of course - like you could get Samsung to repair it anyway. At least my Samsung is so easy to repair, I got the factory manual and could do it myself! I think it is the user reviews on Amazon that will kill the big screen plasmas; if they aren't dead already.

Both DLP and plasmas have been discontinued so it's really pointless to debate this but the experts disagreed with your insistence that DLP was better than plasma. For years and years the top rated HDTVs on CNET were plasma because of their deep blacks, great viewing angles and lack of motion blur. DLPs just didn't compare to plasmas in terms of picture quality. For years the Value Electronics HDTV shootout involved comparing the best plasma and LCD/LED TVs not DLP TVs and it was almost always won by plasma TVs: 2009 winner Pioneer plasma, 2010 winner Panasonic plasma, 2011 winner Sharp LED, 2012 winner Panasonic plasma, 2013 winner Samsung plasma and 2014 co-winner Samsung plasma. Gary Merson who is considered an HDTV expert and writes the HDGuru blog (who's reviews have also appeared on CNET), always gave the highest ratings to plasma TVs. Also, if you ever went on the AVSForum to get information about HDTVs, plasmas were always considered the best HDTVs to buy not DLPs. People bought DLPs because they were available in large sizes and were less expensive than large plasmas and LCDs.

As far as your insistence that burn-in was a problem, I'm sorry but the experts overwhelming disagree with you. If it was then the experts would have rated plasma TVs as the best TVs to get for all those years. CNET consistently gave "Editors Choice" ratings to plasma TVs. I even sent you the CNET article where they explained that burn-in isn't a problem yet you still insist that it was so it's obvious you prefer to reference reviews from unknown sources over the expert reviewers. My 2 year old Samsung F8500 plasma is still working great with no signs of burn-in.

It's great when people stick to the forum topic.

Sorry to be such a problem,...I was just replying to DGates post...not trying to change the topic.

From what I've been told and read, there was also the "burn in" issues on the screen. I bypassed the Plasma's altogether and went with the LCDs that were making a wave at the time. Have had my LG for 9 years now, and PQ is still as good as the day I got it.

The crowd is less a problem than the fact you can only view it yourself from a specific position.
Why then having a large screen that takes som much space in your living room but you cannot position yourself and live really there. Are you necessarily always stic in your armcharir looking at TV?
A larger view angle is definitely a better option that an hypothetic asserted (and in fact unverified) better quality.
The flat screen offers other advantages, notably it can fit better in your living room and it will save space (remember this is already a large screen. Do you remember the space we have gained when CRT displays have disappeared ?
Curved screens are exactly like 3DTV (or 3D cinema): just a commercial lie for something that is in fact worse than before and not very useful and not as much usable.

Save your money. Flat screens are enough.

Use your money to get larger screens and/or better resolution (4K TV if you have programs to display with it) and/or a better display with a better contrast (pure blacks), or with other options such as IPTV (make sure your TV has an Ethernet plug and/or Wifi to connect to your Internet router or to your home PC or your smartphones/tablets when you'll buy VODs and want to use your TV for more comfort).

Don't forget to compare the sound, if you don't have an external 5.1 audio system, or make sure the TV has 5.1 sound output. Use your money to buy good external speakers and bass woofers.

Use the space gained by the flat screen to install some diffuse light between the screen and the wall (some Philips HDTV have this light preinstalled behind, with color control: it adds to the visual comfort)

But more importantly, compare the color rendering and how the image is treated and how it is corrected when there are encoding artefacts or transmission defects or artefacts caused by movements: Philips is definitely better than Samsung there only because of the numeric hadling of the image, notably when it is animated. Look at people faces (do they look "flat" and saturated or with depth (you don't need a 3DTV to see that depth), look at their thin hair on their head; look at tree leaves, look at grass surfaces, and textured surfaces.

Look for "moiré" effects that appears when viewing thin contrasted lines that are nearly horizontal or vertical. The "moiré" effect can cause artificial animations that unnecessarily distracts you from the scene (notably when looking at sport events such as football, or scenes with doors and windows) What is important is to look at an animated image.

Look also at how the textual caption subscripts are rendered: the font used and its contrast much not hide the scene. Look at scrolling texts notably those in small sizes (e.g. newsfeeds on news channels, or at end of movies: you should not see any flashing pixels around the scrolling glyphs and the font weight must remain stable and consistent: your test should be ti measure the speed you need to decipher it). Look at channel logos (generally in the top-right corner): they should be stable, without flashing effects even when the image aound is animated.

Best information I've seen yet here in this discussion. I know a lot of, what think are good alternatives to OLED, but not having seen or owned one, I cannot really add to the subject any more than that. I hadn't seen a Philips for sale anywhere yet, although I saw the announcment for 2015 market release,

So you base your opinion on what other naysayers good to say and not your own experience... Not much of here to listen to....

Obviously these people didn't buy these TVs but did look at them, shopped for them and came up with logical & helpful information.
Most have "Helpful" votes; you have squat.
So unless you have legitimate info yourself, do us a favor, stay in Mom's basement and
Just Keep Whining to Yourself.

They simply should state they didn't buy because they don't like it or didn't want to spend the money! Why is that so hard? Not all this spreading of pure bull, from one hater to another...

Just show some manners and courtesy...
Your criticicism isn't helpful; why not ask them why they didn't buy the one they looked at at the store...????
Happy Easter
Teddy_B

So, do not mention the criticism of others and the legthy bull , I want them to prove the wrong statements they are making...

to others are considered personal attacks.

I don't have a problem with you calling people out on their opinions and stating your facts and experiences as an owner of a curve TV, but in our community being respectful to others and keeping your responses civil is the key here.

Your experiences and factual statements would most likely resonate a lot more with folks if you just simply replied in a civil manner. That's all we ask.

We in this community are all here to learn from one another especially from the experiences from folks like, but if you have to resort to antagonizing others or personally attacking others, no one benefits from it.

my next trip to Costco I paid more attention to the Visio curved tvs and saw you have to be quite a ways off center before loosing part of the picture. Costco dose/didn't have words displayed so can't say what it does to them.

There is almost nothing to be said in favour of these over-priced gimmicks.
I say "almost", only because it is just possible that the forward curvature from a wall close behind MIGHT permit easier access to some of the TV's cable sockets. That cable/socket access can sometimes be problematic with some flat screens when mounted almost flush with the back wall. That's a barrel-scraping excuse, really. It's easy to mount a flat screen with a little extra clearance if that is needed!
Some people might think that the curvature makes the large frame look more aesthetically pleasing as a piece of static furniture. That's an acceptable opinion, but I most certainly do not - the only effect the curvature has on me is to mock its over-priced practical pointlessness.
Other than that, they really are a total waste of money and completely prevent mounting close to the wall behind when that integrated closeness is exactly what most people are probably aiming for.
They possess NO optical advantages whatsoever, none. Real world vision does not bend your field of view and a TV that does actually detracts from realism.

Since I don't have a curved TV and don't know if there is a screen technology that can compete with my plasma for full living room picture fidelity. I also have TVs with other technologies and don't believe that curving the screen would improve my viewing experience. I do have questions that I would need answered before I would even look at the curved screen as an option: 1) regarding the curvature, is there a standard or will next year's models be more curved for even better immersion, 2) is the advertised size of the screen from side to side as you view it or is the size along the surface, i.e., a 75" curved screed narrower than a 75" flat screen? 3) isn't anyone not sitting dead center having a view that would be be more angled than if viewing a flat screen from the same position? 4) is perspective of images consistent from every viewing position or do horizontals taper together or diverge away at the sides of the screen? 5) to be truly immersive shouldn't the eyes of the viewer have to be within the curve of the screen?
All in all, unless price equality happens between flat and curved, to be more immersive at home will have a hard sell since it must compete with all the other new bells and whistles bound to "coming soon" to a living room near you.

Either the price is lower because the curved screens are not selling as well, or they are perhaps cheaper to build for some weird engineering reason - but the flat screen OLEDs, which is what I wan't are almost twice as expensive. I really wonder what gives with that?