I’d pay an $80 to $100 premium for a dumb TV
I’d even consider replacing a couple
Smart TVs are just terrible
I’d pay an $80 to $100 premium for a dumb TV
I’d even consider replacing a couple
Smart TVs are just terrible
https://www.viewsonic.com/us/products/shop/digital-displays....
Because manufacturers will earn more than your 100$ with ads and all other smart features on you if they don't let you buy a dumb screen.
Is there any evidence that this is the case?
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/10/22773073/vizio-acr-adver...
The quality of the picture is much lower than high end budget tvs like the Hisense 55U6G. If youre buying a TV primary for the panel, to watch video, being "dumb" isnt going to take preference for me over the better panel.
Rethink that. If HDMI were delta-compressed, then what happens if you exceed the bandwidth limit for several frames in a row? To be reliable, it needs to have as much bandwidth allocated as is needed for bitmap streaming. And in that case, why not just stream the bitmaps...
It could also send deltas and achieve much higher variable frame rates.
The need to stream pixels at a constant rate feels like scanning a CRT and makes generating video signals a lot more complicated than it needs to be.
There's no way deltas would exceed deltas that are just full frames. If you can't send a full frame over the wire, then you are trying to push too many pixels and need to downsample on any of the 3 dimensions you have to play with.
Having said that, DSC exists and has been adopted by both HDMI and DisplayPort standards. But only on the highest end of capability because it costs a lot to implement on both sides.
A full-frame 8K image with 32 bits per pixel takes up 128MB of RAM. An FHD one is 16 times less, 8MB. This is not a lot of memory for an appliance in 2002, when HDMI was introduced.
You only need a frame buffer if you are holding a frame.