3D HDTV is the most pointless mainstream technology ever. - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 745 Old 04-08-2010, 12:36 PM
Senior Member
 
WorldCup2010ESPN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 203
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Look folks! 3D is just a feature and added bonus. Lets not sit here and pretend that 3D already replaced 2D TVs. Some of you doesn't even have a ground to their claims, attack the feature all you want, some have valid points and some attack it like no tomorrow. I cannot believe that such feature will make people divided and get too political about it, it's very silly and pointless. Whats the deal with people claiming they will not buy 3D sets? Are you folks realize that by next year or two that most TVs if not all TVs will have 3D capabilities?? just non sense if you ask me. YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE TO PAY for 3D glasses or 3D blu ray player but may only upgrade your TV with newer one that may happen to be 3D READY TV, so i guess if you guys see the word 3D ready with the TV then you all will never upgrade to a newer TV and wait for 3D TVs to fail?????




Some folks giving the impression that the traditional 2D TVs are no longer exist and that they need to adopt to a new change with the newer 3D sets, which is totally insane.. 3D push will continue whether anyone like it or not, but 3D needs to be improved and people to watch without glasses, period! With how technology move fast, im confident that 3D will get better by the next few years, but in the main time 2D is to stay for a long time, im not sure what is the big confusion about that. YOU pay PREMIUM price for anything that is new, Just like the first production of HD Ready TVs and even full HD TVs, they were priced very heavily more than you can imagine but prices went down within time....
WorldCup2010ESPN is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 745 Old 04-08-2010, 01:38 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scopeboy View Post

It's funny that you mentioned sports programming..........and you are right about that. However, during the Cowboys/Chargers game this past season, they showed fans at Texas Stadium game in 3D. I guess this is the technology that is going to change how we view sports......... 5 minutes into the 3rd quarter, people started moaning and taking off their glasses. If this is the attention span with 3D and 80,000 people, I hope it gets a whole lot better or interesting.......because this was NOT a good sign.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy91 View Post

This is something the "pro 3D" crowd should really read and think about.

Not really. The 3D used at Texas Stadium was anaglyph. For a variety of reasons, it looked poor. What will be used in the home is completely different.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #93 of 745 Old 04-08-2010, 01:41 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeyW View Post

I have a question. The consumer 3d tv's use a technology that requires mechanical 3d glasses that cost about $150. The professional 3d tv's only require the same glasses that you would use to see a Real 3D movie, and they cost about $3 (going by the extra cost for 3D).

Why can't the consumers have that? Why do us buyers have to shell out all that extra money for an extra pair for a friend (or a replacement)? Would you pay that extra money just so someone else can enjoy 3d with you?

Home 3D = Active Stereo
Theater 3D = Passive Stereo.

Same result but different technology.

Passive Stereo viewing can be done at home, but the display would be way too expensive at this point. Active Stereo is the least expensive way, even considering the cost of the glasses.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #94 of 745 Old 04-08-2010, 01:41 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Off topic comments removed.

Topic moved to 3D Forum.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #95 of 745 Old 04-08-2010, 02:19 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
JOHNnDENVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
The only people I see saying they hate it or have no interest are on intrnet forums.

Everybody I know went to see Avitar and liked the 3D aspect. Many people I know have seen the demo now at Best Buy and liked that too.

I was decently impressed with cruddy red and green glasses 3D in my theater, I know I am going to like screening higher end 3D.

Choices. I surely can see no reason to deny better quality 3D in the home / home theater experience to those that want it.
JOHNnDENVER is offline  
post #96 of 745 Old 04-08-2010, 02:48 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeyW View Post

I have a question. The consumer 3d tv's use a technology that requires mechanical 3d glasses that cost about $150. The professional 3d tv's only require the same glasses that you would use to see a Real 3D movie, and they cost about $3 (going by the extra cost for 3D).

Why can't the consumers have that? Why do us buyers have to shell out all that extra money for an extra pair for a friend (or a replacement)? Would you pay that extra money just so someone else can enjoy 3d with you?

You can have one - the 46" JVC 3D LCD uses cheap passive glasses and it costs $9000. And the 3D is Half HD per eye because it is based on the Xpol technology.

Or you can get the Panasonic 25" 3D LCD monitor, also an Xpol tech display. May need to jury rig an input. It costs $9900 and uses cheap passive glasses.

So which would you like to buy?
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #97 of 745 Old 04-08-2010, 02:50 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by obeck View Post

Exactly.

It is even worse than that: MOST of those channels/stations are 720p, and there are NO 1080p broadcast stations. We have had 1080p sets for nearly 5 years, and the only true 1080p content that is readily available is BluRay, and BluRay players only dropped to $100 about three months ago.

The idea that a vast store of true 3D content is right around the corner is a pipe dream. I would not pay one extra cent for 3d technology now, and I would not regret any non-3D TV purchase.

In 2005, I had to think long and hard about getting a 1080p set vs. 720p/1080i. People were saying the same things then about 1080p that we are saying about 3d now. Don't believe me? AVS is a vast archive of those discussions. In retrospect, a person who bought a 720p set in 2005 MISSED NOTHING. A person who bought 1080p in 2005 paid a premium FOR NOTHING.

Hogwash!

http://www.cnet.com/1990-7874_1-5119938-1.html
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #98 of 745 Old 04-08-2010, 02:51 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo131 View Post

Due to an eye condition (amblyopia) I am unable to view movies in 3D. Therefore, I agree with the original poster that 3D TV is pointless and the manufacturers should not bother making them.

LOL! So you can't see 3D thus forth no one else should have it?
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #99 of 745 Old 04-08-2010, 02:53 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cold View Post

I will second all of those comments.


For years we have been wanting Vibrant rich deep colors, The shaded glasses "Dim" everything.

Maybe at home it will be less objectionable in a dark room.


3D really needs a BIG TV.

99% of out 3D experience has been AVATAR is an IMAX Theater (or what I call IMAX Mini) unless you went to a FULL 5 story tall IMAX.


But the narrative thats being sold is that "if you liked AVATAR in 3D you will need a 3D TV"

And thats all thats being said. By TV News Media and Print. All bought off. Wake up people.

Now I am not in the 3D is a "Fad" camp. No its here to stay.


But you need a Really BIG TV if not the effect is ruined or badly limited.

To me it reminds me of a Kids Puppet show, or a 3D View MAster from when I was a kid.

And wait for all the "specially optimized" Speakers for 3D.

All you need to do is sit closer to the display. That compensates for not having a BIG 3DTV.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #100 of 745 Old 04-08-2010, 02:57 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOOBZ1LLA View Post

^agree.

It's an added bonus. Don't like it don't use it. Although I would have preferred resources got put into OLED tv instead.

I didn't mean to start a flame war, and I wasn't looking to troll. I just made a thread representing my opinion after finally experiencing 3D TV.
It is what is it.

I just think that TV makers are giving the public too little credit. Instead of fixing existing problems, they designed a new paradigm to sell a whole new set of products.

Fix what problems? You going to blame the display manufacturers for HDTV's short comings?

Pick SMPTE or Comcast or DirecTV or Dish or Time Warner, etc if you want someone to blame.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #101 of 745 Old 04-08-2010, 03:11 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
JOHNnDENVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I don't think you really miss out on anything even if you choose a 720p display today.
For me? It's ache'n to OAR. If the presentation is natively 3D, I want to be able to screen it in 3D. Now before we had to use red / green glasses, to say there is no improvement over the only previously available method with the new 3D BD or 3D Broadcasts even with active glasses is flying in the face of reason.
JOHNnDENVER is offline  
post #102 of 745 Old 04-08-2010, 03:22 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
So much misinformation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by obeck View Post

MOST of those channels/stations are 720p, and there are NO 1080p broadcast stations.

Most HD channels are 1080i, not 720p ( http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=164671 ), and 1080p was not designed for linear HD channels; it was included in the ATSC standards for film based material, like HD movies.

Quote:


The idea that a vast store of true 3D content is right around the corner is a pipe dream.

No one is saying that. No one, no where.

Quote:


In retrospect, a person who bought a 720p set in 2005 MISSED NOTHING. A person who bought 1080p in 2005 paid a premium FOR NOTHING.

Nothing except years of better HD image quality. Any of the HD channels can be deinterlaced and viewed in 1080p.

To each their own, but let's at least be accurate with the info we post.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #103 of 745 Old 04-08-2010, 04:00 PM
 
Splicer010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 32
I am surprised the the Sony is considered the worst 3D sets. The 3D set I saw in a local Sony Style store looked really good as far as I was concerned. The polar bear clip was outstanding and the video game demo looked much more fun to play. I did remark about the glasses and mt disdain for them in another thread, but I believe the desired effect was brought about wonderfully.

A local amusement park has an attraction that is a 3D feature where the film is Sponge Bob Square Pants in 3D and motion seating that rises,falls, left right, forward, back and really is the ultimate in experienceing the 'like you are there' experience. In order to see in 3D you use cheap glasses that are light weight and have the appearence of sunglasses. Much more comfortable than the Sony glasses I tried. But the Sony 3D demo most closely resembled the Sponge Bob experience, minus the motion seats of course.

And to answer the OP question, no, 3D is not "most pointless mainstream technology ever". It may be 'lame', it might be 'stupid' but that depends on the person as to their feelings about the technology. I agree it is just another way to get more money from consumers for a niche product, but that is what business is about, how to seperate money from consumers. And while folks may not be shouting from their rooftops their desire for 3D, like everything else it comes down to supply and demand. If there is a strong enough demand for a product, no matter what that product may be, someone, somewhere will supply it. Myself, I can do without and as long as I can still watch television as I have for the past 45+ years, I'll be as happy as a chesire cat. At least with the current 3D technology. Now once the technology has progressed to the point of direct view/glasses free 3D, I might change my mind, as I am sure most people, including the OP himself, will.
Splicer010 is offline  
post #104 of 745 Old 04-08-2010, 04:09 PM
Member
 
hifiguru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 60
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOOBZ1LLA View Post

It came to my attention today after visiting my local Sony Style store that 3D TV's are the most pointless mainstream technology ever.

How did this happen? When did consumers get on top of rooftops and start screaming for 3D capable TV's in their living room? I don't think that ever actually happened.

It was like one day a bunch of major corporations got together and were like hey we are going to tell the American sheeple they want 3D Tv's. But even the most greedy CEO has to be scratching his head trying to understand how a person would want to willingly wear a heavy pair of heavy glasses for hours at a time. Do you really think you can make it through Lord of the Rings with those things on?


First of all the technology itself is flawed. Have you watched 3D TV demos on LCD's? Were you blown away? Did you feel a revolution on the horizon in how people receive visual media?

My biggest complaint really is that the 3D effect itself looks dinky and cheap. It reminds me of this toy I had when I was a kid. You know the one it was red and you put it up to your face and looked into it. It came with those circular paper discs with slides in them. You put the disc in the top and it had a lever you pull on that would switch to the next image. The 3D effect produced by the top LCD's today is similar to a childs toy from the 1980s.

I really don't understand what everyone is so excited about. I'd rather have a local dimming LED/LCD TV without having to pay a premium for 3D ready, since as far as I know there is no 2010 flagship model minus 3D capability.

3D TV is nothing more than a blatantly engineered marketing gimmick.

Am I wrong?

In a word YES....

I remember selling the first Fujitsu and Pioneer plasmas in 1997 for $14K and $25K respectively and all of the people who came in and said this is retarted. Who needs a flat TV, why do I need HDTV when I can only watch 5 videos played on a WVHS machine, what kind of idiots do you think we are, and my current 40" tube is plenty.

I agree it is not perfect, it is rather clunky, there is not much content, but what if the manufacturers had not been "greedy" in the mid 90's and said who needs this HDTV and flat screen marketing hype? Even worse, what is this color garbage, this looks just fine in black and white.

Enjoy your 3 channels on a 10" black and white console.

We are the people our parents warned us about!
hifiguru is offline  
post #105 of 745 Old 04-08-2010, 05:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Topic title edited.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #106 of 745 Old 04-08-2010, 05:31 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splicer010 View Post

I am surprised the the Sony is considered the worst 3D sets. The 3D set I saw in a local Sony Style store looked really good as far as I was concerned. The polar bear clip was outstanding and the video game demo looked much more fun to play. I did remark about the glasses and mt disdain for them in another thread, but I believe the desired effect was brought about wonderfully.

A local amusement park has an attraction that is a 3D feature where the film is Sponge Bob Square Pants in 3D and motion seating that rises,falls, left right, forward, back and really is the ultimate in experienceing the 'like you are there' experience. In order to see in 3D you use cheap glasses that are light weight and have the appearence of sunglasses. Much more comfortable than the Sony glasses I tried. But the Sony 3D demo most closely resembled the Sponge Bob experience, minus the motion seats of course.

And to answer the OP question, no, 3D is not "most pointless mainstream technology ever". It may be 'lame', it might be 'stupid' but that depends on the person as to their feelings about the technology. I agree it is just another way to get more money from consumers for a niche product, but that is what business is about, how to seperate money from consumers. And while folks may not be shouting from their rooftops their desire for 3D, like everything else it comes down to supply and demand. If there is a strong enough demand for a product, no matter what that product may be, someone, somewhere will supply it. Myself, I can do without and as long as I can still watch television as I have for the past 45+ years, I'll be as happy as a chesire cat. At least with the current 3D technology. Now once the technology has progressed to the point of direct view/glasses free 3D, I might change my mind, as I am sure most people, including the OP himself, will.

SpongeBob SquarePants 3D

(2003) 4:40mins

Special Venues Only: Paramount Theme Parks. 3D Ridefilm by Blur Studio.

SpongeBob SquarePants

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/dc...b_squarepants/

I think this is a short piece of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub7YP...eature=related
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #107 of 745 Old 04-08-2010, 05:46 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve S View Post

One of the benefits of modern electronics is that something like 3D capability can be added to a tv without negatively affecting it's performance as a 2D set and at minimal real cost.

Something many participating in this topic don't seem to understand is that just about any improvement made to an HDTV for 3D will also improve 2D performance.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #108 of 745 Old 04-08-2010, 05:58 PM
 
Splicer010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

SpongeBob SquarePants 3D

(2003) 4:40mins

Special Venues Only: Paramount Theme Parks. 3D Ridefilm by Blur Studio.

SpongeBob SquarePants

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/dc...b_squarepants/

I think this is a short piece of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub7YP...eature=related

Exactly.

But this is a better (complete) version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aAhL...eature=related
Splicer010 is offline  
post #109 of 745 Old 04-08-2010, 06:00 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

Something many participating in this topic don't seem to understand is that just about any improvement made to an HDTV for 3D will also improve 2D performance.

Or at the worst case - not affect it at all.

Wonder why people aren't poo-pooing HDTVs with Internet Connections.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #110 of 745 Old 04-08-2010, 11:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fire407's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,527
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Or at the worst case - not affect it at all.

Wonder why people aren't poo-pooing HDTVs with Internet Connections.

Because a TV lacking an internet connection doesn't make anyone feel inferior. Having new buyers getting the 3D technology, makes the people with current high end equipment feel like they no longer have the state of the art.
fire407 is offline  
post #111 of 745 Old 04-08-2010, 11:19 PM
KBI
AVS Special Member
 
KBI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,467
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I remember when HDTV was just a 'gimmick.'

The #1 spot for gaming headphones/headsets/Mic mods/DH 5.1/links & more.
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/...494101?sk=info
KBI is offline  
post #112 of 745 Old 04-09-2010, 04:02 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
JOHNnDENVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloridaDude View Post

Interesting article, has pros and cons...

"The trouble with 3D in movies is that Hollywood is confusing novelty with sustainable appeal. Audiences will quickly tire of 3D pandering -- and of wearing goofy cardboard glasses.

And that's one of the problems with 3D as it's currently set to be offered in consumer electronics. Executives smell money. But they just don't get 3D.

"We went from standard definition to high definition, and [3D] is the natural next step." HDlogix president Jim Spinella said recently, perfectly encapsulating the conventional wisdom among 3D advocates.

That statement sounds reasonable. But it all hinges on what "3D" means. If "3D" means goofy glasses, then, no, going from not wearing goofy glasses to wearing them is not a "natural next step." And HDlogix's own technology helped demonstrate that.

A Dallas Cowboys football game featured the "first live 3D broadcast ever to be shown on giant video screens at a major sporting event." The idea was to showcase HDlogix 3D technology. At halftime, the giant screen switched to 3D mode, and the fans were invited to put on the 3D glasses that were handed out at the entrance.

The intent was to show the second half of the game in 3D. But many fans refused to wear the glasses, and saw a blurry picture. Some of those who did wear them felt nauseous. The crowd booed. After a few uncomfortable minutes, the video was switched back to normal, 2D mode. The crowed cheered.

This is the horrible reality of current-generation 3D. People cheer when you turn it off. That's too bad, because several industries are throwing a lot of money at it..."
http://www.techworld.com.au/article/...will_fail_2010

Just as many success stories as well though.... I'd bank I can find more recent successfull presentations than failures. I mean Avatar alone makes the numbers not so good for the failures. Somebody else stated this was red / green glasses 3D? If so, this is a rediculous piece of evidence to post on it.
JOHNnDENVER is offline  
post #113 of 745 Old 04-09-2010, 04:07 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
JOHNnDENVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by g011um View Post

But we haven't gone to high definition yet! Not even close! How about companies make that first step before trying the next?!

I've had my HD service and HD-PVR for about 4 years. Of the 200+ channels my cable provider has available, about 20-25 are HD. The growth of HD over the last few years (at least in terms of new channels) has been glacial. At this pace we'll be another 5-10 years before the ratio of SD to HD finally shifts.

3D, even in it's current form, seems at least that far away as well. By then the fad will have died out (as it always has).

Hmm well over 1/2 of my content is HD now..... So my experience is quite different than yours on this note. Most other couple my wife and I know are similar.
JOHNnDENVER is offline  
post #114 of 745 Old 04-09-2010, 04:12 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
JOHNnDENVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy91 View Post

This is something the "pro 3D" crowd should really read and think about. People can like 3D but it won't be appropriate in all situations. Wearing 3D glasses is a bother. The screen has to encompass the field of view or it's going to look 'odd'. 3D really belongs in a theater where the screens are huge and the ambient surroundings are black/low light. At home and at bars, 3D, just gets in the way of normal living and interacting. It requires someone to totally zone everyone else out. That's why the public 3D sporting event broadcast failed. A crowd must interact and be social.

Again, the ONLY way this technology becomes viable is if/when the glasses are no longer needed. And that's the MINIMUM standard. I would also add that most home screens would have to cover the whole wall to be enveloping enough for most people. Which is why 3D has only really worked in a movie theater with a large screen.

Lots of us on here have dedicated theaters in their homes. I look forward to screening natively shot 3D persentations in it. So the tech is viable now.
JOHNnDENVER is offline  
post #115 of 745 Old 04-09-2010, 04:15 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
JOHNnDENVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaz01 View Post

Well, I for one would like to see all channels in HD. And why not 1080p?

I'm with ya on black levels too.

Surely some people aren't comfortable with change, probably most.

There are also folks who like getting things right before jumping on to something else.

I don't want to fight out here and let many posts go unreplied to due to this concern.

Could 3d be lining up sides like the lcd vs. plasma groups?


I have no issues with 1080i content or even 720p content. I am struggling to understand why 1080p content would even be so desired. I'd bank in most all "blind" testing, most of the time you couldn't even tell the difference.
JOHNnDENVER is offline  
post #116 of 745 Old 04-09-2010, 04:19 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
JOHNnDENVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cold View Post

I will second all of those comments.


For years we have been wanting Vibrant rich deep colors, The shaded glasses "Dim" everything.

Maybe at home it will be less objectionable in a dark room.


3D really needs a BIG TV.

99% of out 3D experience has been AVATAR is an IMAX Theater (or what I call IMAX Mini) unless you went to a FULL 5 story tall IMAX.


But the narrative thats being sold is that "if you liked AVATAR in 3D you will need a 3D TV"

And thats all thats being said. By TV News Media and Print. All bought off. Wake up people.

Now I am not in the 3D is a "Fad" camp. No its here to stay.


But you need a Really BIG TV if not the effect is ruined or badly limited.

To me it reminds me of a Kids Puppet show, or a 3D View MAster from when I was a kid.

And wait for all the "specially optimized" Speakers for 3D.


Isn't it great that all you have to do is hit a button or two and take off the glasses and your back to the 2D you seem to really like?
JOHNnDENVER is offline  
post #117 of 745 Old 04-09-2010, 06:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
chaz01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOHNnDENVER View Post

I have no issues with 1080i content or even 720p content. I am struggling to understand why 1080p content would even be so desired. I'd bank in most all "blind" testing, most of the time you couldn't even tell the difference.

I'd bank otherwise. Quantify "most of the time"? What level of defect is acceptable?

Wondering if you took this same stance when 1080p was introduced?

Are you debating just to debate something?
chaz01 is offline  
post #118 of 745 Old 04-09-2010, 06:53 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mgkdragn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Illinois, East of St Louis
Posts: 10,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 93 Post(s)
Liked: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOHNnDENVER View Post

I have no issues with 1080i content or even 720p content. I am struggling to understand why 1080p content would even be so desired. I'd bank in most all "blind" testing, most of the time you couldn't even tell the difference.

1080i and 1080p are both High Definition display formats for HDTVs. 1080i and 1080p signals actually contain the same information. Both 1080i and 1080p represent a 1920x1080 pixel resolution (1,920 pixels across the screen by 1,080 pixels down the screen). The difference between 1080i and 1080p is in the way the signal is sent from a source component or displayed on an HDTV screen.

In 1080i each frame of video is sent or displayed in alternative fields. The fields in 1080i are composed of 540 rows of pixels or lines of pixels running from the top to the bottom of the screen, with the odd fields displayed first and the even fields displayed second. Together, both fields create a full frame, made up of all 1,080 pixel rows or lines, every 30th of a second.

In 1080p, each frame of video is sent or displayed progressively. This means that both the odd and even fields (all 1,080 pixel rows or pixel lines) that make up the full frame are displayed together. This results in a smoother looking image, with less motion artifacts and jagged edges.

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?

mgkdragn is online now  
post #119 of 745 Old 04-09-2010, 06:57 AM
Advanced Member
 
Don H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Eatontown,NJ,USA
Posts: 902
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'll wait for ultra HD.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Don H is offline  
post #120 of 745 Old 04-09-2010, 07:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fafner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 1,854
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by KBI View Post

I remember when HDTV was just a 'gimmick.'

I know of no one who ever thought HDTV was a "gimmick." It was clearly thought to be a higher quality picture. Lots did think it was not worth the money but that is another thing entirely.

fafner
fafner is offline  
Reply 3D Tech Talk

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off