Showing posts with label tv. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tv. Show all posts

Monday, 13 May 2013


Android 5.0 notebooks, a Google 

smartwatch, and an Apple TV

 competitor coming our way?

nexus-10-vs-nexus-7-12
Whilst the new Nexus 7 may have been the big news from KGI Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo yesterday, he has also released some information, or shall I call it speculation, about some other future Google projects today.
There’s mention of an Apple TV competitor and a Google smartwatch, which we’ll delve into in a minute, and, perhaps most interestingly, some rumors regarding notebooks and Android 5.0.

Of course, Google already has Chrome OSfighting in the laptop corner, but with the operating system struggling to gain mainstream appeal and an OS merger now out of the picture, you can understand why Google may be interested in trying out Android on more traditional computers.
However, Kuo doesn’t believe that we’ll see any of these products at Google I/O this year, and states that Google probably won’t be the first to market with an Android-powered notebook.
Sounds like logical reasoning. As we know that Android is making a move into the notebook space,Intel already told us as much, you can bet that Samsung, and other manufacturers, will want to put products to the market as early as possible. But as Android 4.x isn’t really optimised for laptops, the user experience could be a little lacklustre. Which is perhaps where the next major version of Android comes in?
Kuo gives a major hint that Android 5.0 (Key Lime Pie?) could be, at least in part, orientated around improving a laptop/notebook experience, but that we won’t be seeing any Google products in this category until these features are ready.
Targeted at notebooks? Is Android about to pull a reversal on us and move away from a touch input focus? It’s an interesting statement to say the least, but remember that Jelly Bean added features like multi-user support specifically to tablets, so there's no reason why the next version of Android couldn’t add some sideline features for notebook users.
Moving on, we’ve all been hearing about Google’s rival to Apple TV for a while, so is the service about to step it up a notch?
Kuo suggests that whilst an Apple TV-like competitor is still on the way, hardware changes have been causing delays which means that it probably won’t be appearing at Google I/O either. Supposedly, Google has decided to change from a Nvidia Tegra-powered chipset to Texas Instrument’s OMAP, which I presume means that a pretty big redesign has taken place.
Finally, how about a Google smartwatch? Again there’s been plenty of speculation floating around about this particular product as well, and surprise surprise, according to Kuo we won’t be seeing a Google smartwatch for a while yet either. Apparently the smartwatch won’t go into mass production until next year, and could be launched to accompany other wearable technologies like Google Glass.
Google Smartwatch 3D render concept
So did Kuo actually tell us anything of worth here? Well yes and no. These are still rumors, and since none of these products are set for release we won’t be able to confirm or deny their existence any time soon. On the other hand, if true, these rumors give us an interesting insight into what Google has planned for the future. Directly taking on Microsoft and Apple in the laptop space with Android would be a bold move by Google, but the timing seems right when you look at the poor sales of Windows 8.
I suppose the real important question is will consumers actually be interested in any of these products? Would you buy an Android-based laptop, a smartwatch, or Google TV box?



Thursday, 28 March 2013


Amazon launches X-Ray for TV, helps you identify actors with a single tap

Kindle Fire HD
Following the introduction of X-Ray for Movies last year, Amazon is expanding the feature to TV shows offered on Amazon Instant Video.
Powered by IMDB, possibly the world’s biggest reference website for anything that has to do with films and television, X-Ray for TV allows viewers to tap into the wealth of information from the massive online database. If you’re wondering just who plays the kick-ass samurai-wielding Michonne on The Walking Dead, just tap on the screen as her character appears to get her name and other gigs.
Other supported TV shows include Justified, Downtown Abbey, The West Wing, Sons of Anarchy, Falling Skies, American Horror Story, Grey’s Anatomy, Doctor Who, Lost, Glee, Breaking Bad, and Game of Thrones. Amazon said that more shows will be added in the future.
A similar feature was introduced for Google Movies & TV app yesterday. In their case, the data is pulled from Google’s Knowledge Graph and then presented as info cards that pop up on the screen a la Google Now.


Wednesday, 20 March 2013


Microsoft takes the Windows Phone Challenge on to TV

 
windows phone challenge
Smartphone advertising can sometimes be a pretty blunt business, especially when it comes to feature comparisons. I’m sure you’ve all heard of Microsoft’s Windows Phone Challenge before, or “smoked by Windows Phone” as it used to be called. It’s a series of tests issued on the street or in Microsoft stores aimed at proving that Windows Phones are better than your handset.
In case you haven’t seen it, here’s a recap video from CES last year.
I makes for somewhat entertaining Youtube viewing, for a commercial stunt anyway, and Microsoft clearly thinks it’s time to take these challenges onto television.
It plans to air a short 30 second clip of a camera challenge between Nokia’s Lumia 920 and Samsung’s Galaxy S3 on ESPN and CBS throughout the men’s and women’s NCAA basketball tournament.
The new ad shows a comparison between the Galaxy S3 and Lumia 920′s cameras operating in low-light conditions, which seems fair game as the Lumia’s camera is fairly decent. I won’t spoil it for you, but I’m sure you can already guess who wins.
You can already check out the clip on Youtube if you don’t fancy staring at your TV just to see the commercial.
Microsoft clearly thinks that it’s on to a winner with this campaign, and I’m certainly a fan of doing some head to head testing in the flesh. But for that reason I’m not sure that a staged ad using company staff will have quite the same impact was walking into a store and having a Microsoft employee show you who’s boss.


Wednesday, 13 March 2013


Projectors vs. TVs: Giant-screen pros and cons

Despite reviewing TVs for a living, I don't actually own a TV. The last TV I bought was a 27-inch CRT, in the summer of 2000.
Instead, I do all my TV and movie watching on a 102-inch screen. It's epic. And a projector doesn't have to cost a lot of money, nor is it difficult to set up.
The pros and cons of projection (and why you really, really want it), after the jump.

Projector basics

Front projection is a two-piece system: a projector that creates the image, and a screen that reflects it. The thought of dealing with two pieces often gives people agita, but in reality projectors are exceedingly simple to set up.
There are three types of technology in front projection: DLP, LCD, and LCOS.
LCD is basically the same technology used in flat-panel TVs. Typically, LCD projectors are in the low to midranges of the price spectrum. Where they once were strictly in the budget realm, steady improvements have resulted in some models being the best in their class. Epson, for example, has put out several excellent projectors in the past few years.
DLP, or Digital Light Processing, uses small chips with millions of tiny mirrors. They range in price from ultra-low-end models to extremely expensive, three-chip flamethrowers for dedicated theaters. Digital projection in movie theaters is most often DLP. Their black levels and contrast ratios aren't as good as those of LCOS or many LCD models, but motion resolution is way better. As they're made in such a range of quality levels, it's impossible to say DLP is this or that, but typically picture quality is very good.
LCOS, or liquid crystal on silicon, can be thought of as a hybrid of DLP and LCD. It's a liquid crystal layer on top of a mirrored surface. Black levels and contrast ratios are both excellent. JVC projectors (using their version of LCOS, called D-ILA) have consistently had the best contrast ratios I've measured of any display type. Sony's version, called SXRD, is a close second. Prices range from midrange to upper midrange, though Sony's new 4K projector is way high-end in price.

Pros:

Size
This is the obvious one, and the reason to go projection. I have a 12-foot-wide screen for 2.35:1 movies. In 16x9 mode, actors on TV look larger than life. Wait, they are larger than life. Literally! At 50 inches tall, that means a close-up is a 4-foot-tall head.
Or think of it this way: watching a 2.35:1 movie, like "Lord of the Rings," on a screen that nearly fills your entire field of view is the very definition of absorbing. Speaking of absorbing, if you drink too much soda and you need to take a break, this movie theater is in your house! Pause, micturate, then movie!
Lately, I've been using my "TV" as a computer monitor. Planetside 2 on a 100-inch screen with full surround sound is the equal to or better than nearly all war movies.
On a small screen, even 50 inches or more, you can't see all the detail in a 1080p image. From the average sofa distance of 9 feet, your eye just can't resolve it. Blow that up four times to 100 inches, and now you've got yourself a party. Individual strands of hair, every pore and whisker, every blade of sand and grain of grass.
This is where the benefit of 4K comes into play. Though I think Ultra HD 4K TVs are dumb, the same resolution for projectors is great. The much larger image benefits greatly from the added resolution. Most people will likely see pixels on a 150-inch screen at 9 feet, but not with 4K. Unfortunately, right now, Ultra HD projectors are even rarer than Ultra HD TVs. Check out Chris Heinonen's awesome 4K Calculator to figure out your ideal screen size/view distance/resolution.
Of course, it means lesser-quality content (like DVD or standard-definition cable) is much harder to suffer through.
Lastly, your house becomes the default location for movie nights, TV watching, and sportballteam events.

Easier on the eyes

Everyone always asks if having a screen that big hurts the eyes. Actually, it's the opposite. Filling a larger percentage of your visual field, and with less overall brightness, a big screen actually quite relaxing to watch. More like an actual movie theater, which often produces no more than 5 footlamberts or so (on my screen, most projectors produce around 30 to 40; an LED LCD can be three times that or more). Check out this post on "Why do my eyes hurt while watching TV?" for more info.

Space (sort of)

If you mount the projector on the ceiling, the screen can just hang on the wall. More expensive installations feature retractable screens, where the screen disappears into the ceiling.
Some people like the idea of just painting the wall, but I don't like the rough texture this creates, as it tends to be visible.
Even though you can mount a TV on a wall, most people don't. They're surprisingly heavy. A screen is light, and if you drop it, there's little possibility of damage (unless you stick something through it).

Cons:

Light
Well, that's the big problem. No matter how bright the projector, and no matter how clever the screen material, any ambient light in the room is going to wash out the image. Forget about watching TV with the shades up, or the lights on. You need absolute light control in your room, or you'll be forced to watch TV only at night. In my theater, there is some light during the day, but not enough to wash out the image (though this means I can only review projectors at night, leading to a rather bizarre sleeping schedule).
Lamps
Nearly all projectors create light with a UHP lamp, which lasts a few thousand hours and then costs a few hundred dollars to replace. Figure a new lamp every year or so, maybe every other year. The cost of doing the business of awesome, apparently. We're starting to see LEDs replace UHP lamps, but so far the price is still high. You're better off getting a better-performing UHP-based projector and paying for the lamps.
Odd living habits
There are aspects of your life that change, oddly:
You minimize walking in front of the screen (down in front!).
Because of this, you can't get a Kinect or a Wii. You'd be standing in front of the screen, blocking the image, while you tried to get the controller to work.
You leave the shades drawn a lot. Or maybe that's just me.
Suddenly, all your friends' TVs seem impossibly small.
Perhaps my favorite oddity is pointing to something onscreen. After so many years of having a projector, I just raise my hand and use the shadow of my finger to mark what I want. I also do this at friend's houses...and they don't have projectors. So for a moment, I'm just some guy with his hand randomly in the air. Cracks me up every time.

Other cons(iderations)

Audio
It goes without saying (or maybe it doesn't) that you'll need a receiver and speakers. A projector isn't a TV, per se. There's no tuner, and most don't have speakers. So you'll need a source and audio. For cable/satellite users, the source part is easy: you probably already have the box. You can always buy an external HDTV tuner for over-the-air HD broadcasts.
The receiver and speakers, if you don't have them already...wait a second, why don't you have a receiver and speakers? You're not using the speakers in your TV, are you? For shame. There is no better upgrade you can make than upgrading your TV's audio. I recently did an article on this over at HDGuru.

Cables
A screen

Then there's the screen. Screens range in price from a few hundred to many thousands. As I mentioned above, I don't recommend just using a wall. The image you see is the light from the projector reflected back to your eyes. If there is any sort of texture in the reflecting surface (the wall, in this case), you're going to see that as well. It's worth investing in a screen. Some have better light characteristics, some do fancy things like make the black level better, or make a brighter image, or minimize the effect of ambient light, and others retract, mask at different aspect ratios, and more. The Screen Innovations Black Diamond Zero Edge screen is rigid, so it looks just like a big flat-panel TV when the projector's off, plus it rejects a lot of ambient light when the projector's on, a cool trick. I've been a big fan of Stewart and Da-Lite for years. They're great, and offer a lot of really cool options, but are generally on the more expensive side.
Then there are the cables. You're going to need to run HDMI from your receiver all the way to the projector. Check out my posts on why all HDMI cables are the same and still more reasons why all HDMI cable are the same, though make sure you note the part where I say that in this exact circumstance it is worth it to get a decent cable. Check out cables with RedMere. I use two long Monoprice HDMI cables with RedMere in my lab, and haven't had any issues so far. There's also wireless, though I found in a recent test that the current crop of wireless HDMI transmittersleave a lot to be desired.
Noise
Because UHP (and LEDs, actually) generates a fair amount of heat, projectors have fans. The amount of noise created varies greatly. Inexpensive and small projectors can be quite loud. Larger, more expensive projectors have designs that minimize their noise and can be very quiet. If the projector is going right above your head, better choose a quiet model. If it's going on a shelf far behind you, this is less of a concern. I have yet to review a projector that was loud enough to offset the awesomeness of its massive image, and I'm an audiophile.
Cost
Lastly, there's cost. Though there are some sub-$1,000 projectors on the market that are quite decent, to get really good picture quality, you have to pay a bit more. I recently reviewed and loved the JVC X35, Sony HW50, and Epson 5020. CNET editor Ty Pendlebury, too, reviewed the Sony HW50 and David Katzmaier reviewed the X35, and both of them like both of them a lot. These projectors are in the $3,000-$4,000 range, the range of a high-end large flat-panel TV, and offer some amazing performance and much bigger image size.
There is not a linear increase in performance with price. The Epson is one of the brightest displays of any type or technology I've ever measured, capable of immense images (it could easily handle a 150-inch screen). The JVC has one of the best contrast ratios I've ever measured of any display type or technology. The Sony has fantastically accurate color. Sony has a 4K projector, and some high-end three-chip DLP projectors can offer highly accurate color and incredible light output (the Epson can do one or the other), but often the increase in picture quality with expensive projectors isn't the leap it used to be.
What about getting a gigantic LCD TV instead? Well, good question. I wrote "Don't buy a jumbo LCD TV, buy a projector" to cover that. I hope I didn't give too much away with the title.

Bottom line

As much as I'm a proponent of projection, I begrudgingly admit it's not for everyone. I do believe, however, that it's for more people than currently have it. There are practical considerations with any display, and the truly massive screen and immersive experience go a long way (in my mind) to offset a projection setup's negatives.
Or let me put it another way. With my current setup, I use my 102-inch screen to watch TV and movies part of the time. The rest of the time I use it for gaming and use a tiny little 50-inch plasma to watch TV at the same time. It's a tough life.