For the lovers of Shield TV.

[Guest asrequested]

[Waldonnis 148]

I'm curious to see how well they actually perform and how good the non-gaming-related video processing ends up being.  AUO makes some pretty solid VA panels, so unless they fall flat on the FA implementation, it might end up being pretty nice (assuming their DCI-P3 coverage is as touted by nVidia).  120Hz panels are a rarity in the consumer television market, so let's hope this thing actually sees a real release and some success to force others to up their game that way.

 

That aside, the pricing on this thing is going to be ludicrous and everyone knows it.  Slap "gaming" on anything and the price automatically goes up.  If they really want the market share, they'll need to price it competitively with televisions rather than pricing it like a PC monitor.  Nobody will bite if it costs significantly more than TCL's P607 (a popular-in-gaming-circles, lower-priced low-latency 4k panel; yeah, it's 55" and 60Hz, but it's still budget-friendly), and if the MSRP approaches a 65" OLED...yeah, not even true 120Hz will win that contest.

[Guest asrequested]

Eventually I think the tech will filter down, be more common place and affordable. But I'll bet the picture is incredible! 

[Waldonnis 148]

Eventually I think the tech will filter down, be more common place and affordable. But I'll bet the picture is incredible! 

 

It didn't look like they're doing anything revolutionary here other than having a faster panel, so it would basically be equivalent to a current television that supports the same FALD zone count (which they did not specify) for television/movies/streamed content.  From a gaming perspective, supporting a variable refresh rate on a faster panel is a win regardless, but if they keep the same price premium for G-Sync as they do in computer monitors, it'll be a tough sell ($100-300 price differential compared to FreeSync, and that's on a 27"; paying almost $800 for a VA panel that size just "because G-Sync" is ridiculous IMO).  I'm also sure that they'll basically add the cost of the Shield TV to the price tag as well, meaning a $300 total markup minimum compared to the competition.  Add to that the markup for the 120Hz panel and they could price themselves into OLED territory.

 

If nVidia's smart and actually want to sell it en masse, they'll set their price point to compete with mainstream televisions, but they seem to always operate on the "we're better than them, so you'll pay" mindset.  Just look at Shield TV pricing...yeah, it's a better product than the competition, but the pricing difference is rather large compared to something like a Roku, and double the cost of other (admittedly less capable) Android TV solutions.  Personally, I think they see their non-GPU products as being in a class by themselves, so they don't consider pricing competitively.  That works for some products and they've gotten away with it in the GPU market simply because of their market dominance of late, but televisions are a commodity product to consumers and it could mean a whole lot of stock sitting on shelves if they get it wrong.  Then again, many gamers will suck up anything and pay stupid money for a slight perceived "edge", so who knows.

[Guest asrequested]

I agree with your sentiment on the pricing. I do think the shield is overpriced, for what it is. I was posting it mainly because of the shield integration, but I do wonder if the picture quality might be improved of over 'standard' TVs.

[Waldonnis 148]

I agree with your sentiment on the pricing. I do think the shield is overpriced, for what it is. I was posting it mainly because of the shield integration, but I do wonder if the picture quality might be improved of over 'standard' TVs.

 

It might be, but not for reasons most would think of or would even notice unless it's pointed out.  The panel tech sounds like pretty standard "modern technology" from what I can tell.  Adding variable refresh rate capabilities and using a higher native refresh rate panel have some benefits that can help out in the perceived quality department, though.

 

It's hard to tell just how closely they can match source frame rates since their PR is pretty vague and oddly worded ("23.976 FPS U.S. broadcast television shows"...huh?), or how they're accomplishing it from a signal/panel perspective.  Without seeing the panel specs, I'm not sure if some pulldown would be involved still and how well it will combat judder.  Even if they just adapt signals to 120Hz using 5:5 pulldown, it's still an improvement over 3:2.  With VRR and 120Hz native frequency capabilities, I don't see any need or desire for ME either.  ME is the devil, in my opinion, and the sooner it gets killed off as a feature, the better.  Even if ME is not needed, I guarantee they'll add some ME setting and default it to on for non-PC inputs "because reasons"..which will just give me giggle fits, followed by a periodic eye twitch.

 

Really, none of these features or benefits are new, as 120Hz panels in consumer televisions have been sold for a while, and some are probably VRR capable if they had the proper silicon included.  It's just that the television-buying public doesn't know or care usually, as it's "just a television", so I don't expect any of the above to really make any difference to the average person.  Explain FALD to a person at BB or Costco and watch eyes glaze over, yet the benefits of that for television/movie viewing are more obvious than upping panel refresh rates or using VRR.

 

Without going to something like MicroLED or some other new emissive display tech, I doubt we'll see any significant picture quality improvements compared to what's on the market today, though, at least from a panel perspective (processing is another subject).  The entire reason this thing exists seems to be more about addressing the slowly-growing "large display" gamer market segment that hasn't been specifically catered to prior to now...and just dragging in Shield TV features to make it more inherently attractive/useful than a standard VRR computer monitor would be.

[Guest asrequested]

And of course we would need devices that could properly utilize displays that have attributes such as 120Hz, otherwise it would be redundant. A bit like watching 1080 on a 4k display that has to upscale, and probably doesn't do it, very well. 

[Waldonnis 148]

And of course we would need devices that could properly utilize displays that have attributes such as 120Hz, otherwise it would be redundant. A bit like watching 1080 on a 4k display that has to upscale, and probably doesn't do it, very well. 

 

Television scalers are usually rather good these days, but the point is not lost    If all you do is watch broadcast/cable television or stream Netflix, then yeah, the faster panel is largely wasted potential.  It does open up some possibilities once 2160p60 starts becoming more available, though.  Gaming and VRR is still likely the only reason they bothered with a 120Hz panel, but I'd say that having a fast panel is attractive to many people (like me) as well even if it's used for media consumption (mostly for judder reduction and other more nit-picky type of reasons).  I would never pay what they're probably going to want for it and don't care about the gaming side/low latency (I have other monitors for that), so it's not something I'd consider picking up...but it's not without its merits.  For gamers that want a big, immersive VRR monitor and would like the flexibility provided by the built-in Shield TV side for streaming without needing the console/PC, I can see how it could be much more attractive.  I just don't know how big that market really is or how much they're willing to cough up for it.

 

The way I see it, it's basically a 2017-2018 television model with a 120Hz panel...hardly unique in that regard.  The Shield TV is their value-add and that's not a huge bump up from other Android TV solutions.  So the only selling point left to establish its place in the market is the VRR (and their game streaming stuff...does anyone use that?).  I guess we'll see how the experiment turns out and how many people bite.  Early impressions from tech reviewers were gushing, but the tech "press" is...nevermind, too unkind of a thought 

[Guest asrequested]

Ha! Yeah, it does seem to be a niche market. I think it may be a precursor to having 60Hz TVs with shield built in. I'll be interested to see what direction they go in.

[Waldonnis 148]

Ha! Yeah, it does seem to be a niche market. I think it may be a precursor to having 60Hz TVs with shield built in. I'll be interested to see what direction they go in.

 

If they had taken a different approach, they could've done that with licensing agreements.  Tegra hasn't really taken off outside of their own products, though, and they use Android as a base, so there isn't much opportunity there either.  Seems like most television manufacturers also produce ARM-equipped devices (read: phones) and would rather use their own SOCs...and part of why the Shield is so well done is how well they've exploited the capabilities of their own ARM variant.   Unfortunately, other manufacturers seem disinterested in doing any more than the basics when it comes to optimising their TV platforms.  They seem more interested in partner agreements with streaming services or trying to build their own ecosystem that nobody will ever really use.

 

Personally, I'd love to see Tegra and Shield TV's "platform" used in other devices as I think it's a really robust and featured combination, so I'm with you on that one.