« Hugh Edwards: Unknown Icon | Main | Random Excellence: Saroyan Humphrey »

Tuesday, 20 June 2017

Comments

"No wires." So it gets its power from where?

Hello,
I´ve never understood the raving about this product. You always could do that with an existing tv set and sending it to your favourite framer [framist?].

I´ve done that for a couple of my own projects. Plus, you always have a double glare [even with matt screen].

By far more impressive the LG Blade [or Wallpaper, as you prefer] concept, which already retails:

http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-OLED65W7P-oled-4k-tv

The most striking element of this tv is actually the image used for the fake passe-partout. The rest, thanks to the quality of OLED. But the very same effect can be achieved with a standard OLED TV. You might even want to consider having a black passe-partout framing the existing screen, were you wanting to try this trick.

"It's wireless." No 120V needed?

That tv is pretty, isn't it? Unfortunately for video aficionados its tech specs are apparently a half step behind the latest and greatest. Which, of course, is the Achilles heel often limiting such products.

Re: the virtual museum idea, it's both old and new. During the early 1980's when the newly-minted tech billionaire Bill Gates was designing his new super home he envisioned electronic pictures on his walls, much like Samsung envisions with The Frame. As he was also in the process of buying the Corbis Archive (which he sold last year) it seemed a perfect fit. Rumors had it that the project, at least initially, was so-so. Bill may have been ahead of the tech on this.

Today many musuems are increasingly incorporating high-res displays into exhibits, usually as interactive educational supplements to material. But, of course, why would anyone take the expense and trouble to visit a room full of video displays when they can, increasingly, see the same works anywhere, anytime, on any appropriate devices, in whatever manner they prefer? The virtualization of the museum experience is becoming a real issue in the museum world. Google's recent (and ongoing) virtual art museum project was perhaps the tip of an enormous iceberg.

For a moment I thought that world headquarters had a room addition!

I can't say exactly why, but I kinda hate the idea. Maybe because I already spend too much time looking at screens.

The $$ aspect is a bit rich for my bank account but a great idea. I am surprised that digital picture frames in general have not become more popular given the high resolution abilities of monitors now.

I see no reason I need a special TV for this, but I've been thinking of this idea the last few weeks. I can buy two pretty darned good TVs for the cost of framing the number of things I'd really like to add to my walls. On the TVs they'd mostly be bigger and better-looking. Also—the issue of lighting for wall art is much mitigated by this approach, so that's another way this saves money and is a better outcome.

There's a very old idea, the "clock outlet", which gives you a recessed outlet that you can hang an old AC-powered electric clock over invisibly; to get the effect pictured I imagine you would have to install something like that, otherwise the power cable would be visible.

What's the lifespan of a modern OLED screen? Because this is going to burn through it much faster than watching TV 4 hours a week or whatever.

In general, I really like the idea behind using these panels to display photography, especially with the choices in matting and framing. The issue I have personally is that I don't have large enough continuous wall space in my home to mount one of these on my walls (my small condo has lots of windows). And, you can't buy a 20" one, which are the biggest prints I can hang in my home.

But they won't replace the print either. I think it's important to have physically tangible photographs, both for what they provide in their instrinsic physical attributes, materials, texture, and, most importantly, a physical embodiment of images. People are discovering (or rediscovering) they want tangible photographs in their lives, particularly the photos that capture life's moments. This is why Fuji Instax products have become so popular (VERY popular, as it turns out).

Personally, i'm more interested the new print products becoming available from White Wall than these LCD displays, though I still think they are very cool.

I like the concept. It's odd that the Samsung site and its user manual don't list any specifics like how to plug it in. The manual is full of instructions about connecting the set to wired or wireless Ethernet, HDMI, and component video.

They also don't list any specifications. They do give the energy guide label from which I estimate that the set dissipates 66 watts.

At $2000, it's too rich for my blood, but I look forward to reading about the experience of using one.

It never ceases to amaze me that anyone claiming a shred of visual intelligence would mount a TV above the height of the viewer.

I wish my living room looked like that. The only place I've seen one is in a home furniture retailer showroom.

There's a AC power wire somewhere in the rear because the specs say it uses AC110 so a wall plug will be required wherever it's mounted... Nice idea though about the simultaneous gallery show.

Well I've wanted one since I first saw that on Mr. Roger's Neighborhood. For example: http://whatvinniethinks.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Picture-Picture.jpg

I'm not sure what's stopping me from getting a frame for my current flatscreen. It can't be that hard.

Mike,

There was a guy in London five or so years ago named Stephan Bartels who was selling fractional screen time "memberships" to a photography gallery that had screens instead of printed and framed work.

He closed as unfortunately it seemed he couldn't make the business model work.

If you search online you can probably find some YouTube videos or images of the gallery from circa 2012.

Best Regards,

ACG

That'll go over like a LED balloon.

Seriously, though, I'm not saying it isn't "brilliant", but the photo illustrates an issue for a lot of people, which is that most of us situate our art differently than our entertainment screen. You'd really want a screen/frame dedicated to art, and hung for art viewing/displaying (perhaps doubling as TV for live event watching parties), and another screen nestled in the appropriate theatrical setting (good sound and low light, couch level).

I had a TV installed over the fireplace when my son (college student at the time) agreed to stay for the summer at my house while I travelled. He asked that I upgrade the TV for him since I had an older style TV I never watched, and no cable. After we made a trip to Best Buys for a smart TV and then the cable company, (thank goodness I got rid of cable shortly after that), I had to hire an electrician to put it all together. I am guessing The Frame TV uses the same type of electrical connection in the wall my TV does; it is called a Recessed Receptacle Clock Box Outlet and will keep all the wires hidden behind the TV and wall. The electrician was the least expense of the project, but was most appreciated as he knew what he was doing!

My first thought when looking at this was, "How long does it take for an image perpetually shown on a monitor to burn itself in?" Wouldn't the constant showing of the same image damage the tv?

As someone who loves fine prints on real paper the idea of a digital display makes me cringe. The idea that it "all" may come to iPhone cameras and TV displays makes me sad. A beautiful print with the paper surface & texture is a wonderful thing to look at or hold in your hand. It reduces photography to a glorified internet experience.
Too bad!

Why not expand your gallery concept to a subscription system, whereby subscribers could view the gallery shows in their homes?

You had a piece on Jim Marshall a while back. Bill Gates bought the exhibition/publishing rites (not printed art or gallery rites) to Jim's work for $3M several years before Jim died. Jim left that money to a foundation that does research into a disease that his long time assistant suffers from.

My guess is that Bill has been buying the rights to a lot of photography. What do you think he plans to do with all those photos?

I'm holding out for one that can rotate between landscape and portrait orientation :) I had a quick look at the specs & couldn't see such a feature listed.

Removing tongue from cheek - one thing that could be brilliant or a dud is the idea of leasing the images. Their page mentions a growing list of images, including from emerging artists. Could be the iTunes of photography & other visual arts, with all the good/bad aspects that that entails.

But wouldn't you have fun curating it!

1. Looking closely at the photo, there is a white narrow wire running down the wall from the TV. For 60 watts, a thin wire could handle it.

2. The best part is the room brightness sensor that dims the image in low light.

3. The Matte is very cool too.

I'm all for it catching on. Who likes looking at a big black screen of a TV when it is off.

This is the worst design since the curved screen. Why should a TV look like a painting? Reminds me of the days when they were stored away in cupboards. Behind closed doors, next to the bar disguised as an encyclopedia. Besides the problem how to install such a thing the situation in the picture is not a proper audiovisual set up. Look for example at the postion. The thing will be literally be a pain in the neck for everybody watching it. The distance is much too far as well. And where are the speakers? If they are built in the sound must be horrible and will cause a lot of acoustic problems. Probably for your neighbors too if you are living in an apartment.
The most annoying recent development however is the ridiculous horizontal image ratio of 21:9. Especially since there is a fast growing demand for watching all those vertical videos and photos that most people seem to prefer when using their smartphones.

An electronic glitch or major solar storm and you have nothing.
Electronic toys are fine but a real print on the wall is much better for many of us.
Your electronic marvel will never show a hand poured Carbon with its relief. The subtle surface textures we love.
Way too many toys.

1. The problem with OLED screens is burn-in. This is problematic for static artwork, though OLEDs are more immune to it than the old plasma screens.

2. I really can't get too excited by this idea being new or radical. Digital photo frames have been around for long time now. And I can already display images on my existing flat-panel TV.

3. I did see the much praised new Sony (not Samsung) OLED TV in a store. The picture is gorgeous, but as with all store displays, the saturation was really pumped up. I wonder how they fare with photographic art, with subtle shading?

My objections to this are the cost, the power consumption and particularly the fact that not all photos (especially mine) have the same aspect ratio and I dislike uneven picture mounts. Just imagine a square photo displayed on that. I too, prefer the physical presence of a framed print and looking at a screen is much more tiring for the eyes, not relaxing as it is looking at a print. The fact that I don't watch or own a TV doesn't help convince me either.

This is wonderful.
This is terrible.
One thing is certain. Any electronic device for portraying images will be useless within a lifetime. The stored image will almost certainly be irretrievable unless it is also available in a medium that does not require anything other than the human eye to access it.
Enjoy the new ways of looking at images but also do everything you can to encourage the print and book makers.
Go to any good museum and see how physical artifacts last and inform for hundreds or even thousands of years.

As MJFerron says, I'm also surprised digital photo frames never took off; and are still a stupid price if you want a quality one. I understand fine art printers cringe at them but for the folks that want to sip tea with friends or enjoy a family meal whilst the frame flicks through the last holiday snaps or the kids growing up, they are great. I've often given them as presents to grandparents loaded with pictures.
Don't get me wrong I certainly wouldn't make one a centre piece, but just on the side showing memories...
Make a svelte one of those Samsung - I'll buy it.

I suspect this is the eventual answer to your "Scary Future" post. Eventually, people will have screens like this built into the walls of their homes. The screens will be able to have any type of image: pictures, drawings/paintings, decorative art, etc.

There will be many people motivated to make their own images. Because of the extreme resolutions needed, large cameras will be back in vogue.

The only reason why iPhones are competitive now is because we have become accepting of images displayed on HD screens. Very soon it will be 4K (not everyone has moved to this resolution yet), which starts to show the advantages of large cameras over phone cameras. When we get to 16K or 64K (it will happen), phone cameras just won't be able to compete.

It will be a point of pride to make a beautiful image that spans an entire wall that you can look at from 8 inches away and see beautiful detail. There will be many people partaking in such ventures (at least for a period of time before we go into the next camera lull).

It looks like it would be a PIA if you wanted to switch between horizontal and vertical images.

I agree with those that say what is good for a TV experience is not necessarily suitable for artwork. That TV is way to high on the wall for pleasurable watching. The landscape/portrait dilemma is also very problematic and, in my opinion, dooms most electronic picture frames. Only a giant square screen would solve that issue, and I have yet to see one of those. Also, for many of us, a TV goes best in a corner, not flat on a wall given the furniture required for a family to sit around it.

A while Ago, Bruce Ward of Wichita, Kansas had a photography show every month and experimented with using multiple (4 I think) monitors to show some of the pictures.

[Note that Mike is a different Mike Johnston from the one who writes this blog. But I can't call him 'another Mike Johnston' because to him I'm another Mike Johnston. --Mike Johnston]

I'm with Richard Newcombe, a print is unique. I have not seen one of these screens close up but there's nothing like sticking one's nose into a real print to see the detail. I just returned from a workshop where the reviews were the major part of the entire week. The majority of the participants showed their work on screen. I have aging eyes and while the images were impressive, I felt almost cheated because I could not linger and look, move back, and close to see these lovely works of art. Progress?

In less than ten years you will easily be able to tell how well-off[*] someone is when you walk into their house: if they have the descendants of this they will not be well-off; if they have print, on paper, they will be.

[*] Actually this won't be just a factor of income: it really, as British people will understand and Americans will pretend to, will depend on the averaged income of all your ancestors as a multiple of median income at the time the ancestor was alive, which in Britain is dalled 'class'. It may also just indicate taste, of course: these things are not good taste now, and won't ever be.

(Partly a joke, although I do carry a hammer for smashing these things, wrapped in discarded work prints.)

There being a dearth of 4K content, I suppose this is one way to move those TVs.

One thing with hanging TV's over fireplace mantles. You're looking up. Awkward position for viewing long term. I prefer looking straight ahead.

It's interesting to hear many people frame this product (eugh) as a replacement for a fine print collection, instead of in addition to a collection.

I cannot stand big black television sets amongst my furnishings. They dominate a room. Thus I currently don't have one. This would happily sit on a wall with other work and would blend in, so the appeal is enourmous for me. I miss watching movies on a larger screen.

It in no way would replace good prints but I like the offer to have my cake and eat it (no noticeable TV set & watch movies).

It would be good above a low sideboard with a discrete set of speakers that would otherwise run from a hifi. A vertical print next to it on one side could look cool.

I may be odd, but I generally sit (or lie) on the sofa to watch TV. Usually, I stand in front of a framed picture to view it.

Now although most of us could, I don't think too many are using their current TVs to display photos, apart perhaps for viewing a family slide show. And I've not seen many people standing to watch TV. I don't think looking up at the screen would be very desirable.

I'd feel guilty leaving it on when I'm not in the room since they use significantly more power than a print. And having it turn on when I enter would disrupt the feeling of the room since it would be a noticeable change (though that could be minimized with a slow ramp up in brightness). Not to mention that most of my work doesn't fit the aspect ratio or orientation of the frame, which to work for TV/movie viewing would need to be in landscape.

But I love the idea of having a rotating set of art work shown. Though I'd be happy with a set of prints I could change out on a monthly basis. I've been thinking about frameless options for prints to facilitate this.

I want to love this idea, because I have far more images that I would like to display than room to hang them all up and this way I could rotate through. Also I find that a static print gets moved to the visual background before very long and I rarely actually "look" at it, whereas a rotating set of images (even my screensaver) gets the attention much more.

However - it's far, far too big - and the aspect ratio is not one that I ever use for photography, nor I suspect do most people. Make the same thing with a square screen of around 30" diagonal and you'll have a sale or three.

Which they'll never do because the market for a square panel would be microscopic.

The comments to this entry are closed.