Thread: "Smart" TVs
View Single Post
Old 10-06-2019, 10:46 AM   #15
Badcaps Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,274
Default Re: "Smart" TVs

Originally Posted by CapLeaker View Post
O.k. Codecs in firmware updates, that is not happening. For example you have a 40JUxxxx 1080p. It has x264 codec but not the x265 codec that the 40MUxxxx 4k has. They will not update codecs as such. This is actually one of my biggest reasons running the Intel NUC.
Yes, this is my gripe with them (I don't use them as "PCs with large displays" but, rather, as "TVs that can access stored content"). If I have to wait to see if a particular media file will play (without pops and clicks... or, "crashing" the TV) then it's hardly "entertaining". It quickly becomes WORK when I have to recode the file for the TVs shortcomings!

My other half would simply throw up her hands, in that case (so, I make sure all of the content that she regularly accesses is "playable").

But, she also frets over the complexity of the interface... figuring out how to GET what she wants using a clumsy remote.

Depending on how many files you want to store in the library, $$$ will tell you if you want to go the PC route or a NAS route. You need processing power and there isn't much happening under an Intel I5 when you get into the higher resolution and futureproof stuff. Unfortunately these NAS's are not cheap at all... Look at QNAP or Synology. Don't go for the WD MyClould etc. Reason here is, because QNAP and the Synology are the only ones that actually can check the HDD's for errors periodically from A to Z. Look what happened to me a few months ago (thought I had performance issues in the NUC or the network, turned out to be bad HDD's in the NAS!), had 2 HDD's in my RAID 5 fail at the same time. Sucks.
The storage aspect isn't a problem, here. Rather, getting AT the content from the TV is the issue. I'd like to NOT have to transcode at the source as that places limits on how many clients can be supported. If, instead, the "TV" can handle the formats already being used by the content, then the source needs simply to be able to push it to the clients fast enough (a lot easier than transcoding AND pushing).

[performance, usability, reliability...]

Sorry, I meant this with respect to the "little android boxes". I.e., what was the nature of your "run in's" with them?

I use it also to watch a show I like on YouTube, check emails, browse on the internet, look something up... I did put an "air mouse" to my NUC. That is kind of a must. I didn't like the wireless keyboard all the time.
With the exception of the "TV" (doubling as a PC) in the eating area, there won't be any "PC-ish" expectations from the TVs. A traditional remote will be the ideal interface for them.

In the eating area, I will install a variant of this:
The TV that is there, currently, is already mounted on that swing-arm but directly to the wall. I'll replace the TV with a monitor and add the keyboard swing-arm, folding it away when not needed. (I won't use the shelf for the SFF shown in the photo as it would be an eyesore.

[The TV on swing-arm is already there as it allows us to swing the TV around to watch it while preparing food in the kitchen; then swing it back "around the corner" to watch from the eating area.]

All in a nutshell, I think you want more than a "Smart TV" per se can offer you. My advise is a 4k TV and put the smarts in yourself and set it up as you like. Once you have it set up like I do, there is no going back to the Smart TV OS's, as these look and work "half assed".
We could easily "live with" the OS in the TV -- if it would handle our "content" without crashing the TV. I could create a way of turning the TV into a "computer". For example, transcode the "video out" of a PC to make it resemble stored content; then just "play" that stored content on the TV! In this way, I can omit the need for a box AT the TV.

O.k., a given is that I still have a little box besides the TV, but:
We've been trying to get rid of all the "little boxes" around the house. When you actually start taking notice of them, there are quite a few (small "stereos", DVD players, etc.). You NEED the actual device that interfaces to the user (e.g., the monitor or the speakers) but there's no compelling reason that you should ALSO have to keep the other cruft nearby and visible!

It would be nice to just run CAT5e to these devices...
Curious.George is offline   Reply With Quote