If was pianoteq to say it... people wouldn't forgive.

I always enjoy seeing how you think Beto. Totally see what you mention in the market.

Maybe there are more similarities though in both markets.

Rewinding to the 90s for example (before any mainstream type of market beyond CRT monitors existed), a typical 'big' TV would be considered tiny by many now with their wall mounted 50inch things.

But the crux, definitely was, few of us watching that little screen in those times were thinking about "I wish this was bigger or better from wider angles"

I think it was more social back then, family and friends gathering around a virtual camp fire. The "being together" was key to that experience - beyond just being a background noise to keep company, probably very rarely the preferred tool of a deep cinema buff.

When we really wanted to see things at their best, then cinema was an enjoyable night out, again still often social.

Many of these same human things persist, although many markets are arguably not so vertical these days - or where tall niches exist, these are not so much defining something approaching a mainstream size now (like VR - always, even since the 90s been "coming soon to every home and theatre" but always seems still niche although remains compelling).

Now - here comes the fussy home TV market

Nowadays, like with virtual pianos (including early sample offerings like the lovely old Ensoniq and more), the general market has been saturated with varying and always improving choices. We I suppose 'made do' because nothing yet was better on the market - although the expected trajectory was always up. Each new keyboard purchase was expected to bring something more dynamic, or versatile, realistic etc.

At some point - the TV at home becomes closer to a "good quality cinematic" experience (not same but of that order, to many consumers, not all).

Likewise at some point - the virtual piano like Pianoteq's becomes closer to a "good quality recording" or a fine alternative to a real piano, esp. at home.. but also for professionals.

There are professionals working in TV and cinema and they may be fussy with TVs but maybe we just don't see their forums.

There are definitely many professionals using Pianoteq, largely quietly and without fussing and there's also enthusiasts who've been mesmerized by the future possibilities in this space for decades.

So, in the end maybe there's more overlap that we hear about - don't know if there's a good Venn diagram or something which would be able to explain what I mean, but I do love thinking about these sorts of things.

Anyway that's how I'm thinking because of reading your ideas.

Thanks for the imput guys.

Well, a campfire don't get colder at lower angle, as it's 360 degree wide ;-)

About calibration... yeah... people say that to me all the time, but they forgot how bad a LCD/LED looks if calibrated to remove clipping and crushing. It look wasshed. Once a relative was with a LCD monitor and a CRT TV, both connected top the same channel, a sport channel if I remamber well. The CRT was glossy with all details of dynamic range, while LCD was mutted, and the LCD always turned clipped if he tried to make it look better. After many and many minutes it was useless, since compared to the CRT it was horrible, despite have higher resolution for pixels. For me that was one of the most disgusting thing of the world, while other people apparently didn't care. I will never understand such people.

A 4K Samsung LED TV, with great reviiews of consumers on Amazon.com, for me looked like garbage, and calibration was useless, even it having gamma adjust to try to get more details from shadows. Even with maximum back light setting, high contrast, the image still don't look vivid to me, and have white clipping. Remove the white clipping and you get a lifeless image. For other side, a 29 inch Sony Trinitron had great contrast, dynamic, did not clipp or crush details, had no motion blur.

I WILL NEVER ACCEPT LCD/LED TVs NEVER !!!
OLED also use to have some motion blur or stuttery. Costs near 3x more, lasts 1/2 of a LED, so in the end it's like cost 6 times more. And it also have burn in effect.
Plasma looks good, but creates burn in effects, so you can't watch movied with black bars or use for web navigation.
QLED (quantum dots) also have view angle problems and motion blur and clipping. In the end it's kust a LCD with very micorscopic crystals as filters to enahnce colors a bit.

Now LG came with a thing called nano cell, and to bring it top spot they showd the new angle view and the old (now the old is narrow while in old times they said it was 178 degree). And it have motion blur, since they add filter to try harp portion of the image that get motion, but we know that it's a waste, since sharp a very blur image prior to blur do not real make much difference.

HDR it's a lie, since it only works with HDR prepared video, while older videos will look worse than in CRT (fro dynamic and health glossy). Nut manufacturers put the TV DEMO running HDR, and people think it's nice, but then arrive in home and the non-HDR video will look murky, faded, unless they clipand crush things.

IPS it's another lie, since it still get darker and faded as angles of view increase, but the darkning and fading happen in a more homgen way. ANd if look by close distance the edges and borders looks darker than the center.

And 4K (or way worse to 8K) it's a lie. ANother lie...  Wel, to start most films are finished in 2k, and the 4K editions are interpolations wiuth some sharpening, to create a fake 4K. It looks somehow better than 1020p because the compression kill details in 1080p, and for 4K the details killed will be for a smaller pixel.
And if you get close enough to see all 4k details you will be too close, making the center quite brither than the corners, a uneven lightr distribution. This disturbes me even for a PC monitor, since the sides are always darker then the center, and if youy move you head to the side (slide) the side (now cenbter for your eyes) will became brighter than the center and than the another side. A mess...

Now for a 8K TV... to start it will be no much better than a uncompressed 4K, since they imagine no ne will be so close to TV and will reate a compression and bitrate based on that, that will kill most details between 4K and 8K resolution. And people will never look to this TV close enough to see the details (even if the signal digital had it).

That's why I came to the conclusion this ibndustry of home video it's a huge bull s...

Still waiting, in 21 century, that someone creates a digital TV that do not get on my nerves !!!!

But even a TV free from such anoying things wouldn't be enough, since all TV chanels have digital artifacts of video compression, poor bitrate, banding... It's anoyning. Even most blu-ray disks have some of it.

Nobody's going back to CRT, that's for sure. It seems that Beto is in extreme minority, so I would just expect things to stay as they are. The masses are buying and are satisfied, that's all the manufacturers need to know. That's how the game goes and how it always was.

IPS is not a lie indeed, it's a very substantial improvement over TN displays, and you cannot refute this since all those improvements are measurable.

IPS it's just "LESS WORSE"...
The screen still get quite darker as view angle increases...
I saw a IPS advewrtisement on yout, and the advertise was showing something very good, like a solution the the damn view angle problem. But in reality, a IPS TV, for me, on stores, was more like a typic LCD than the video advertisiment.

I know how to calibrate LCD/LEDs. I doid it to my monitor, trying to get all dynamic range of the graduation bar (black to white), but it could not get all the black tones near dark and all the brught tones near white, since the dynamic range it's niot up there. Even with low contrast and low brightness it could not get it all.

Low backlight make the image fadded. High backlight do not increase clipping, since it's the light itself and not a digitral filter adjust. Contrast in digital filter it's different than contrast setting on analogic CRT.
All calibrated LCD/LED, up to remove most clipping, TVs I saw loked faded, lifeless. CRT do not lip the whites while we increase contrast, since it also alter the CRT tube light intensity, while on digital TVs it's like contrast adjust of Photoshopl.

OLED TVs last no long, costs 2x or 3x more, and many have motion blur, and the ones without motion blur, due afast strobe effect, have a stutter effect.

And some clipping, are also due the homologation they did to fit TVs video and internet together.
On CRT times, the CRT TV was good, films and DVDs looked great in contrast in a good Sony TV. But on a CRT computer monitor they looked faded, and if we use the DVD polayer software to adjust contrast it would also clip the whites. That's because CRT TVs and CRT computer monitors had different contrast standarts, one being a high contrst display and the other a lower contrast display.

I once saw a 1080P CRT (flat screen in horizontal and vertical)  in a film LAB with digital FX, I once visited. It was fine for compouter images, but for video from telecines made for TV in HD, it looked like in the times of Power DVD on CRT computer monitor

Everywhere I see a LCD/LED TV it loks ugly. Evertime and everywhere for all LCD/LED TVs I saw in my life.... Angles it's a laways a problem, and if the image do not look fadded it look clipped for whites and shadows.  Only HDR video overcome, or nearly overcome the fadded/clipped problems, but it require videos made on HDR while the best CRTs had good look without need video made on HDR.

I've been enamored by the beauty of the best examples of film as much as any videophile, however digital video clearly has massive advantages and has resulted in awesome improvements in wildlife photography in recent years.
Sure something like Baraka (filmed on rare 70mm film) is beautiful but today even the BBC can afford to capture exquisite images with super fast digital cameras with incredible stabilisation technology. 

Also the average lounge TV is much better than it was in the days of the CRT owing to the advantages of high definition digital and digital broadcasts.
While some TV programmes were filmed in 35mm for distribution in the past the vast majority of TV was filmed on poor quality analogue video. Digital and high definition has raised the bar for TV productions.

So arguably digital has raised standards for the many but detracted from the beauty of the best of analogue, which becomes inevitably more expensive year on year.

Look at the cinematic aesthetic of some premium TV dramas today and compare them to any period before this last decade. Digital TV has raised the bar.