What pains me is not the politics, which have zero place, but the complete lack of explaining why curved displays came to market at all, and the absolute S#!T comment that removing 3D was a good thing - when it wasn't.
Curved displays came out as a form of nostalgia and at a point where no new gimmicks were on the market. We hadn't gone 4K yet, and 3D had come (and was headed out) at this point. The manufacturers were looking for something that could deliver a reason to buy and spend a bit more. Enter the curved large screen display.
For the family room, this was a pointless train wreck. Just abysmal. Not only was it a fad, but it was a short sighted fad. Not just a gimmick, but a gimmick which harmed the end user. Televisions are for family room environments and the use of LCD technology does introduce a bit of image uniformity issues in the nature of the tech itself. But, the goal would be to deliver the most consistent image to as many viewers as possible, and curving a TV takes that away. Curving a TV may (MAY) give someone seated directly in front of it, at the proper distance, a better experience, but anyone not in that position would experience greater image uniformity problems which would only be worsened the further outside that sweet spot they were sitting. The side angled more towards them would look better, but as the curve faced away from them, that greater angle would introduce more and more uniformity errors.
This is in direct contrast to two other technologies.
The main tech is the computer monitor. Monitors are designed for single person viewing. One, and only one is the rule. Sure, not a law, and I can sit over my kid's shoulder and watch him play a game without a problem, but he gets that sweet spot. Likewise, my dual 34" 1440p setup at home, or my ultra wide 1440p at work does the same thing. Curves the monitors towards me because I am the king of all that I survey. It gives me the most accurate colors and the best possible experience. Monitors also are given a specific curvature which is supposed to be close to the viewing distance which viewers should use. Some have greater curvature to allow you to sit a bit closer to the monitor with a perfect image, while others are better for those seated a bit further back.
The other technology is, or rather was, front projection. Way back, many a year ago, the movie theaters were dealing with projectors which weren't as bright as today's digital models, and were dealing with screens that were huge for the amount of light they were getting. The optics involved as well rob some of that light, so using a curved screen not only worked to help get the most light out of the optics onto the screen, but the screen could use silver to help reflect light back towards viewers. The prime central seating absolutely got the 'best' image with the least amount of brightness falloff, while side seating had to deal with the same issues which were listed above. But, in a movie theater, this was how they achieved the best possible image with the technologies they had available at the time. The moderns theaters don't use curved screens as much, or if they do, it is more subtle than before. Often it still deals with the optics in use to give the best possible image, but just as often, a giant movie theater screen may be flat just as often as it is curved.
I certainly believe that the curved flat panel television is a harkening back to the silver screen and movie theater experience. Get a huge 65" TV and bring the cinema to your home! Except, it wasn't the case, and what it delivered was an inferior experience for everyone except that one guy, or his wife, sitting right on center.
Would I use a curved screen in my home for movie watching? Probably not. That doesn't mean I couldn't or that it would be particularly bad. Front projection allows for very diffuse screens which will create almost zero uniformity issues across the entire screen. So, a curved screen could be done nicely. But, why? Projectors, especially home theater projectors, are designed for flat screen use and a specialty lens, or digital warping and correction would need to be used to project onto a curved screen accurately. What a silly waste of image quality.
My political footnote (not introduction), is that there are a ton of 3D movies which are still produced and brought out to movie theaters. The ability to use 3D, especially in front projection, is still highly in demand. The inclusion of 3D on TVs was basically a ZERO cost add on feature. Maybe added $5 or $10 to the final cost of the display. While at the low end, I get the removal of 3D, to do so at the high end was an abomination. If I spend $2,000+ on a better/best TV platform, I expect it to actually have all the bells and whistles. Using a stripped down streaming service, or flaky software is horrendous, but I can fix that with a Roku. I can't fix the basics. I can't force that TV to magically become 3D. It's just a feature I don't get to enjoy, or choose to enjoy, as I want to. Unlike, say, on my BenQ HT2050a projector ($700) which can give me a 150" image with full 3D support. Or my JVC DLA-X590 projector ($4,000) which allows the same.
People are FREE not to use 3D if they don't want to, but to not include it is one of the worst decisions I think that ever happened in the flat panel television marketplace. Not much I can do about it but complain at this point.
