Comment by omnicognate
6 hours ago
It would help if TV manufacturers would clearly document what these features do, and use consistent names that reflect that.
It seems they want to make these settings usable without specialist knowledge, but the end result of their opaque naming and vague descriptions is that anybody who actually cares about what they see and thinks they might benefit from some of the features has to either systematically try every possible combination of options or teach themselves video engineering and try to figure out for themselves what each one actually does.
This isn't unique to TVs. It's amazing really how much effort a company will put into adding a feature to a product only to completely negate any value it might have by assuming any attempt at clearly documenting it, even if buried deep in a manual, will cause their customers' brains to explode.
"Filmmaker mode" is the industry's attempt at this. On supported TVs it's just another picture mode (like vivid or standard), but it disables all the junk the other modes have enabled by default without wading though all the individual settings. I don't know how widely adopted it is though, but my LG OLED from 2020 has it.
I'm sure part of it is so that marketing can say that their TV has new putz-tech smooth vibes AI 2.0, but honestly I also see this same thing happen with products aimed at technical people who would benefit from actually knowing what a particular feature or setting really is. Even in my own work on tools aimed at developers, non-technical stakeholders push really hard to dumb down and hide what things really are, believing that makes the tools easier to use, when really it just makes it more confusing for the users.
I don't think you are the target audience of the dumbed down part but the people paying them for it. They don't need the detailed documentation on those thing, so why make it?
> It would help if TV manufacturers would clearly document what these features do, and use consistent names that reflect that.
It would also help if there was a common, universal, perfect "reference TV" to aim for (or multiple such references for different use cases), with the job of the TV being to approximate this reference as closely as possible.
Alas, much like documenting the features, this would turn TVs into commodities, which is what consumers want, but TV vendors very much don't.
"reference TVs" exist, they're what movies/tv shows are mastered on, e.g. https://flandersscientific.com/XMP551/
I wonder if there's a video equivalent to the Yamaha NS-10[1], a studio monitor (audio) that (simplifying) sounds bad enough that audio engineers reckon if they can make the mix sound good on them, they'll sound alright on just about anything.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_NS-10
$21k for a 55-inch 4K is rough, but this thing must be super delicate because basic US shipping is $500.
(Still cheaper than a Netflix subscription though.)
1 reply →
My local hummus factory puts the product destined for Costco into a different sized tub than the one destined for Walmart. Companies want to make it hard for the consumer to compare.
Costco’s whole thing is selling larger quantities, most times at a lower per unit price than other retailers such as Walmart. Walmart’s wholesale competitor to Costco is Sam’s Club. Also, Costco’s price labels always show the per unit price of the product (as do Walmart’s, in my experience).
2 replies →
They will setup their TVs with whatever setting makes them sell better than the other TVs in the shop.
I don't particularly like that, but even so, it doesn't preclude having a "standard" or "no enhancement" option, even if it's not the default.
On my TCL TV I can turn off "smart" image and a bunch of other crap, and there's a "standard" image mode. But I'm not convinced that's actually "as close to reference as the panel can get". One reason is that there is noticeable input lag when connected to a pc, whereas if I switch it to "pc", the lag is basically gone, but the image looks different. So I have no idea which is the "standard" one.
Ironically, when I first turned it on, all the "smart" things were off.
"Our users are morons who can barely read, let alone read a manual", meet "our users can definitely figure out how to use our app without a manual".
The purpose of the naming is generally to overwhelm consumers and drive long term repeat buys. You can’t remember if your tv has the fitzbuzz, but you’re damn sure this fancy new tv in the store looks a hell of a lot better than you’re current tv and there really pushing this fitzbuzz thing.
Cynically, I think its a bit, just a little, to do with how we handle manuals, today.
It wasn't that long ago, that the manual spelled out everything in detail enough that a kid could understand, absorb, and decide he was going to dive into his own and end up in the industry. I wouldn't have broken or created nearly as much, without it.
But, a few things challenged the norm. For many, many reasons, manuals became less about the specification and more about the functionality. Then they became even more simplified, because of the need to translate it into thirty different languages automatically. And even smaller, to discourage people from blaming the company rather than themselves, by never admitting anything in the manual.
What I would do for a return to fault repair guides [0].
[0] https://archive.org/details/olivetti-linea-98-service-manual...
Another factor is the increased importance of software part of the product, and how that changes via updates that can make a manual outdated. Or at least a printed manual, so if they're doing updates to product launch it might not match what a customer gets straight out of the box or any later production runs where new firmware is included. It would be somewhat mitigated if there was an onus to keep online/downloadable manuals updated alongside the software. I know my motherboard BIOS no longer matches the manual, but even then most descriptions are so simple they do nothing more than list the options with no explanation.
That doesn't preclude clearly documenting what the feature does somewhere in the manual or online. People who either don't care or don't have the mental capacity to understand it won't read it. People who care a lot, such as specialist reviewers or your competitors, will figure it out anyway. I don't see any downside to adding the documentation for the benefit of paying customers who want to make an informed choice about when to use the feature, even in this cynical world view.
That costs money.
worst is graphic settings for games. needs PhD to understand.
They just need 3 settings for games, 1) make room hot, 2) make room warm, 3) maintain room temperature.