Originally Posted by fire407
720p is good enough---really?
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
Do you really expect people to take you seriously when you suggest that 720p is good enough to capture the detail of 35mm film?
It can't capture the detail of the negative, no, but then I've never been to a cinema that projects a film negative. Given that the average 35mm release print - which is projected onto fifty foot screens - is typically somewhere between 750-1000 lines of resolution (http://www.filmschooldirect.com/samp...HD_vs_35mm.htm
), and that's not even factoring in gate weave and imperfect focus, yeah, I think 720p is more than adequate for home theatre. That said, I actually have a 1080p set, in addition to an older 1080i RP-CRT, because it was better in other ways aside from the added resolution.
Even state-of-the-art digital cinemas with 4K projection are showing 2K presentations 95% of the time, because virtually all post production work is done at 2K. And 2K is only slightly higher than 1080p - and that's on screens at least five times larger than most dedicated home theatres.
You seem to think that adding 3D took away some "time perfecting what we already had." That seems to be the biggest misconception on this forum. Once the manufacturers had put in 120Hz refresh rates, 3D became very easy to do. Read how the new Panasonic plasma has better black levels, and a higher phosphor decay rate. I guess they're not improving the plasma technology since they're focused on 3D.
I hope you're right about that. Given the recent history of the electronics industry, though, I'm still skeptical. They seem to be more focused on "improvements" that can be easily marketed - like refresh rates, frame interpolation and increased resolution. I think we're more likely to see 1200Hz, 8K sets being touted before we see real performance improvements. I think one of the reasons the performance of CRTs is still held in high regard is because it had decades to improve incrementally, something I can't see ever happening again. But hey, if a 3D set offers better overall performance than any of its 2D counterparts down the road, then I'll buy a 3D set.
You seem to be like most naysayers on this forum that just want 3D to not happen---we'll it's going to happen because a lot of us are very enthusiastic about it.
Great. Good for you. I don't begrudge anyone their interest in it and I'm not arguing against its very existence. But as this is the "3D Television Opinion Thread", I was simply offering my opinion.
I'm guessing that many of the people that are against 3D are against it because they have so much money tied up in current equipment.
So it's all sour grapes then? Is it really so hard for you to believe that some people genuinely may not have any interest in this technology?