or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › 3D Television - Fad or Here To Stay?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

3D Television - Fad or Here To Stay? - Page 76

post #2251 of 2615
Clearly some brands are up and some are down.....

http://www.vizio.com/news/ConsumersM...nNorthAmerica/

Interesting that the largest selling brand is not even sold in the nations largest electronics retailer

They also don't state if the competitive sales numbers include plasma TV's....so I wonder if those figures..if they are not included....would change the results

I also think the number 3 ranked company makes many of the private label/3rd tier brands


Warren
post #2252 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by turnne1 View Post

LOL..really....

well..I am not an employee of the sales/marketing department of any of the TV manufacturers with access to their business plans and product profitability figures

Yeah, and it also seems you severely lack in any real practical knowledge of how such kind of businesses operate, or any business that is trying to maximize sales and cut down on unnecessary or excessive inventory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by turnne1 View Post

So..quite frankly..I don't feel the freedom to make assumptions as you do

You are the leader of making assumptions here, no one even comes close to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by turnne1 View Post

As for my statement about 3x the products available

I simply looked at the Samsung 2010 line and their 2011 line and counted

Its just a fact....no speculation or assumption on my part

Yeah and of course you conveniently forget to mention, that they also offer less non 3D sets in 2011, as many of those non 3D models from 2009 & 2010 were consolidated/replaced by a 3D model. So gee, if you're a TV manufacturer and you dropped a lot of non 3D models, and replaced them with 3D models, then it is no great surprise that they offer more 3D models than before. With your ridiculous reasoning and also leaving out a few facts, it's like you saying new AVR sales equipped with DD & DTS surround sound, are outselling new AVR's with Dolby Prologic only, while forgetting to mention you can't buy new Prologic only AVR's anymore. Or that hard drive based DVR's are selling more while sales of Betamax VCR's are down. And of course you would also forget to mention that no one is offering a new consumer model Betamax VCR anymore, or at least I can't find any.


Quote:
Originally Posted by turnne1 View Post

and the statement you made about less competition and higher pricing on flat panels

that is doubtful...there could be fallout..if what you say is true

But..like so many other products....they will find a way to make them less expensively


Yeah right, some of these companies have been losing money for years in their TV divisions, and now you seem to think that they will all of a sudden figure out a way to make them less expensively. Do you honestly think that they have not thought of that and have not tried to do it?

As far as build construction and quality goes, some of these flat panels can not be made much cheaper than they are now. As far as being repairable goes, many of them are total throw away sets now if anything goes wrong with them. If something like a panel goes bad or cracks, the cost of just the replacement panel alone without labor to install it, more often than not exceeds the selling price of a complete new set.

You do realize that a lot of imported products that are sold in the US at lower prices, are also being subsidized by being sold at much higher markups/prices in their home countries, than what they are being sold for here.
post #2253 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnla View Post

Read what I said again, as I NEVER gave credence to anyone! In fact I said I read awhile back that there were posts about it in a couple of threads, and that I had no idea if there was even a ounce of truth to it. Personally, I would guess that it was just a rumor stated by someone who had a strong dislike for Samsung as a company. Although I would not be surprised if some exec did make a foolish boast somewhere at some time, and it was picked up by someone and posted, but I never seen any proof of that.

But you did - enough to do your own blue skying:

Quote:


Originally Posted by Johnla:
Now if Samsung, or even any other company, ever ended up as being the only remaining company making TV's, that is not good. Just think, only one company making TV's, this would be very very bad for the consumer.

You could have easily said it was nothing more then BS and left it at that.
post #2254 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

But you did - enough to do your own blue skying:

No, I did not. But of course you are trying to twist it around to look that way.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

You could have easily said it was nothing more then BS and left it at that.

Making a statement how it could be very bad for consumers if there was only one TV manufacturer left is BS, just how is that BS? Now as for will it ever happen, very unlikely.
post #2255 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnla View Post

Yeah, and it also seems you severely lack in any real practical knowledge of how such kind of businesses operate, or any business that is trying to maximize sales and cut down on unnecessary or excessive inventory.



You are the leader of making assumptions here, no one even comes close to you.



Yeah and of course you conveniently forget to mention, that they also offer less non 3D sets in 2011, as many of those non 3D models from 2009 & 2010 were consolidated/replaced by a 3D model. So gee, if you're a TV manufacturer and you dropped a lot of non 3D models, and replaced them with 3D models, then it is no great surprise that they offer more 3D models than before. With your ridiculous reasoning and also leaving out a few facts, it's like you saying new AVR sales equipped with DD & DTS surround sound, are outselling new AVR's with Dolby Prologic only, while forgetting to mention you can't buy new Prologic only AVR's anymore. Or that hard drive based DVR's are selling more while sales of Betamax VCR's are down. And of course you would also forget to mention that no one is offering a new consumer model Betamax VCR anymore, or at least I can't find any.





Yeah right, some of these companies have been losing money for years in their TV divisions, and now you seem to think that they will all of a sudden figure out a way to make them less expensively. Do you honestly think that they have not thought of that and have not tried to do it?

As far as build construction and quality goes, some of these flat panels can not be made much cheaper than they are now. As far as being repairable goes, many of them are total throw away sets now if anything goes wrong with them. If something like a panel goes bad or cracks, the cost of just the replacement panel alone without labor to install it, more often than not exceeds the selling price of a complete new set.

You do realize that a lot of imported products that are sold in the US at lower prices, are also being subsidized by being sold at much higher markups/prices in their home countries, than what they are being sold for here.


a lot of assumptions there....
and again..you must be an employee of one of the TV manufacturers as you seem to have their business model laid out

You seem to know their business plan, inventory schematics,manufacturing costs and marketing scenario in all parts of the world...inclusive of executive statements

I say this because you would have to know this to make most of the statements you just did...with any validity
I guess we are all very fortunate to have you be able to explain the steps of what they will do next...and how it fits with their marketing plans


Which companies have been losing money for years?

From the chart I posted above.. Vizio is doing well
I don't know what their profits are but they have had solid growth and maintain a good portion of total market share in the US


and since you say they dropped models...I am speaking Samsung

which ones were they?
My count says they actually have more models( total) than they did last year

Different numbers....most just with the addition of a "D" in the product name

But..by my count there are actually more total models than 2010(2D and 3D)

All I did was count the models and tally totals


Warren
post #2256 of 2615
I'm responding to some of the discussions earlier in this thread regarding 3D causing headaches, etc.

I am one who loved the 3D in theatres as well as the old Disney World attractions, etc. However, like many, after even 20-30 minutes, I ALWAYS had eyestrain and headaches. In the middle of many of the movies, I would take the glasses off for 15-20 minutes to let my eyes rest for a while. So while I still liked the effect, I didn't try to go to anything 3D that often (that said, there hadn't been that many choices up till now).

When I saw Avatar in 3D (arguably, not a very good movie itself, but the visuals are incredible), the same thing happened. While it was probably the BEST 3D movie (quality wise) I had ever seen up to that point, it also gave me headaches and eye strain.

Of course, all my prior experience with 3D was with the passive glasses, as this was all the theatres, Disney attractions, etc had.

Fast forward to a couple weeks ago when I finally made a decision to get a projector for my home theatre room (to replace a 42" TV). Was deciding between the Epson 8350 (2D only) and Epson 3010 (3D). due to a good price going on at a local retailer, as well as the ability to get a $130 gift certification on a $1000 purchase (which I immediately used to buy a 3D BlueRay player), I walked out with the 3010.

My plan was to give 3D a try with this projector and then decide whether I'd take it back and get the 8350. I was fully expecting to be underwhelmed with 3D in the home, having been unimpressed with 5 minute demos of 3D TVs in the local stores.

That said, I was absolutely AMAZED at what 3D did on a large (147" currently) screen from the projector. While I also don't like having to wear glasses (until recently, I didn't wear glasses normally, an only recently got a slight prescription for ones I mainly use to reduce glare), I found that the active glasses were not an issue. The picture was stunning, and the Epson was more than bright enough to see the 3D clearly, even with a bit of ambient light and the projector it ECO mode (ie: not at full lamp power).

The 3D images popped out from the screen, etc (especially in some of the demos that the Sony 3D BR provides).

Needless to say, I'm keeping this projector (and the KIDS loved it).

The thing that impressed me the most was that even after FOUR STRAIGHT HOURS of viewing 3D demos and movies after I got this setup, I had *NO* eye strain and *NO* headaches. This had never happened before, I always had both when watching 3D. At no time did I feel I had to take the glasses off to let my eyes rest.

My youngest daughter (5) who always hated wearing the 3D glasses at the Disney attractions and theatre (and generally took them off after 5-10 minutes, and never put them back on) was hesistant at first and said she didn't want to wear the ones at home. I convinced her to try, and now she expects all the movies to be in 3D and always wants the glasses. In fact we had some of their (I also have a 7 year old daughter) friends over last weekend and they wanted to watch Rio and (having only 2 pair of glasses currnetly), my 5 year old was upset that she couldn't watch in 3D (as I had to show in 2D so all the others could see the movie clearly). IMHO - this is a good endorsement... I did ask both my daughters whether or not their eyes bothered them or if they had headaches afterwards, and they said no.

Of course this is using the Active shutter glasses, but IMHO, they make a HUGE difference. At least from my experience. I can't speak to 3D TVs or DLP 3D projectors, but at least on this one (which is 3LCD) using the active shutter glasses, it made a WORLD of difference.

The other thing I found interesting about using the glasses is that not only were the black levels better on the projector because of this, but I found myself far LESS distracted by other things in the room during the movies, and more pulled into them.

ANyways, just my views. I was formerly in the other camp thinking that 3D was not worth the extra $$$ and was planning on proving this by returning the 3010 for the 8350, but I have been made a believer.

One thing I will say. I mentioned earlier that I was unimpressed by 3D TV demos in local stores. I imagine this of course is two fold - mainly that in the stores you have bright lights all around, are distracted by everything going on, and never have a chance for a good "experience" (unlike in some dedicated AV stores that have private rooms - though I never tried that). So that was probably the #1 reason.

The second reason though I believe is that you can't possibly get the same experience from a 55" 3D TV. The whole idea behind 3D is that it immerses you into the content. Unless you're setting pretty close, a 55" TV I don't think can give you that. That said, I've never had a 3D TV, nor used one much, so I could be wrong here.

But if it makes a difference to anyone, I'm looking to order a few more pair of 3D active glasses for the projector, and the last few movies we've purchased (with one exception as there is no 3D version available) have all been 3D.

Anyways, just my thoughts - I was skeptical to negative about 3D before, but now see that, properly done, its a winner (we'll see if it is a winner in the marketplace).

That said, Hollywood needs to get off this $39.99 3D movie price (yes you can get them for far less if you hit it right). THat in itself is a major barrier, and I won't buy any more movies at that price.
post #2257 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by hraynor View Post


The thing that impressed me the most was that even after FOUR STRAIGHT HOURS of viewing 3D demos and movies after I got this setup, I had *NO* eye strain and *NO* headaches. This had never happened before, I always had both when watching 3D. At no time did I feel I had to take the glasses off to let my eyes rest.

WOW - that is good to know info - I just assumed if you had 3D eye issues
before they would still be there with Active Glasses.
post #2258 of 2615
BTW - one other thing I'd like to mention.

Having taken a lot of graduate level computer science classes on computer vision, including a few on 3D specifically, we spent a lot of time learning and focusing on how humans see 3D.

So just to correct a few statements here (probably corrected by others as well, but just in case)...

The human mind perceives 3D in 3 basic ways:

1. By having two eyes spaced slightly differently (and thus getting a slightly different "picture")
2. By shading, differences in lighting, and our knowledge of how objects are supposed to look (ie: knowing how an object is "supposed" to look and seeing different shading and lighting effects upon viewing one, our minds can get 3D placement information).
3. Even with only a SINGLE eye - we still have 3D vision. While the eye technically only "sees" in 2D itself, the brain causes the eyes (especially when focusing on an object) to rapidly move left and right / up and down and change focus. Thus it gets multiple views of the same "picture" which the brain can use to experience depth.

If you believe some of the 3D TV, projector, and glasses manufacturers, only #1 and #2 are mentioned, as this is all the current technology can simulate.

If you look at #2 - sometimes good movies on Blue Ray that are in 2D almost "feel" 3D - so that shows you how powerful this in itself is...

However, consider #3. Go somewhere in your home where you can see a lot of depth (a useful thing is a half open door that's right in the middle of your line of vision). Focus on it with both eyes open. Obviously it will appear in 3D. Now close one eye.... Obviously the perception of depth (and thus 3D) has somewhat diminished, but its still there. Now open both and close the other eye. Same thing. With both eyes open you clearly have some hints as to what's behind the door on one side. With one of the eyes closed (the one closest to the open side of the door), that doesn't change much, but with the other eye closed you loose that.

So the primary area in which 3D displays today are lacking and don't address is #3. Due to the nature of how they do it, there is no way for a single eye scanning back and forth in a "3D" movie, to get the same effect (#2 with shading, etc still comes into play of course). To demonstrate this, with a 3D movie in and 3D glasses, move left to right. Can you see any different parts of the scene behind you (helps if you pause the movie while you do this) when you move? No... The 3D image being projected it just from one vantage point, so this won't help. Of course moving back and forth the image will appear to move a bit (due to different distances you are from parts of the screen making certain portions larger and smaller - just like it does with 2D), but you won't actually see anything different itself (ie: I can't walk from the right to the left and see any more of an object on the screen).

Perhaps this is one reason why some get headaches (such as myself) with 3D viewing in theatres with passive glasses. The brain gets "confused" as it doesn't see quite as many visual clues as its used to, causing it to tell the eyes to scan (ie: flicker slightly back and forth) to try to get it, causing more eye strain (just my guess, I have nothing to back this up). With active glasses, I don't have the eye strain anymore, and can't necessarily explain it, but perhaps somehow the eyes get more used to this more quickly (or perhaps the quality of the lens is better than the throw away movie theatre glasses?).

Anyways, just my thoughts...

3D technology today is indeed far from perfect, but as I stated in my last message, it actually has won me over recently (at home with a good 3D projector - I still plan not to watch 3D in movies with the cheap glasses as I still get headaches from that).
post #2259 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by drhankz View Post

WOW - that is good to know info - I just assumed if you had 3D eye issues
before they would still be there with Active Glasses.

Yes me too... My eyes are very sensitive, in fact bothering me now looking at my 2D computer display. Fluorescent lights in stores bother me (and in my home office, need to replace the spots with some LEDs now that prices are a bit down). So I was very surprised to see this.

I'll also state that one other difference watching at home versus in a theatre is that I made a great deal of effort to get the focus as perfect as possible on the projector. Many theatres I've been to don't always have the movie focused well, so I imagine that this hurts also (some 2D movies in theatres where its not focused properly give me headaches). On the Disney World attractions, many of these things have been there for a while, so more the of the 3D is gimmicky and based on older technology (ie: A Bugs Life in Animal Kingdom), so perhaps some of it is due to the quality of how the film was made as well as the glasses, etc.

If you're interested in really seeing if 3D is something for you, I'd suggest going to a high end AV store where they have a private darkened room where they'd let you spend an hour or so. Going to your local "blue" big box retailer and putting on 3D glasses in a brightly lit store with hundreds of people bumping into you isn't the best way to experience this.
post #2260 of 2615
hraynor... congratulations on your purchase, set-up, and recent conversion to the 3D enthusiasts! Curses to you for probably making many of us with flat panel displays now hoping/wishing Santa would bring us a projector & screen for our home set-ups! Your review was great to read. Again, congratulations.
post #2261 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVTrauma View Post

hraynor... congratulations on your purchase, set-up, and recent conversion to the 3D enthusiasts! Curses to you for probably making many of us with flat panel displays now hoping/wishing Santa would bring us a projector & screen for our home set-ups! Your review was great to read. Again, congratulations.

:-) Thanks. Hopefully my good experiences will continue (ie: no headaches or eyestrain watching 3D), but so far, very good.

BTW - I love the 3D demos on the Sony BR player (they're actually pulled in over the net). Especially one of the aquarium ones, and one of the zoo ones (ie: the hippo where it looks like he's swallowing you).

Rio looks great in 3D as well. Now just need to get some more 3D glasses so my wife and 2 kids can all watch at the same time. :-)
post #2262 of 2615
hraynor,

I believe you posted one of the best and most informative post in this thread. It's nice to finally have someone tell their experiences with 3D at the movies vs 3D at home. I also wish you well with your new system...Enjoy!

Ghpr13
post #2263 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghpr13 View Post

hraynor,

I believe you posted one of the best and most informative post in this thread. It's nice to finally have someone tell their experiences with 3D at the movies vs 3D at home. I also wish you well with your new system...Enjoy!

Ghpr13

Thanks, glad you found it helpful. :-)

And in theory things should only get better once I "paint" a proper screen on the wall (right now its just projecting onto the plain gray wall, painted long before I got the projector - color of the whole room).
post #2264 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by hraynor View Post

I'm responding to some of the discussions earlier in this thread regarding 3D causing headaches, etc.

I am one who loved the 3D in theatres as well as the old Disney World attractions, etc. However, like many, after even 20-30 minutes, I ALWAYS had eyestrain and headaches. In the middle of many of the movies, I would take the glasses off for 15-20 minutes to let my eyes rest for a while. So while I still liked the effect, I didn't try to go to anything 3D that often (that said, there hadn't been that many choices up till now).

When I saw Avatar in 3D (arguably, not a very good movie itself, but the visuals are incredible), the same thing happened. While it was probably the BEST 3D movie (quality wise) I had ever seen up to that point, it also gave me headaches and eye strain.

Of course, all my prior experience with 3D was with the passive glasses, as this was all the theatres, Disney attractions, etc had.

Very interesting

It seems that in the active vs passive 3D thread many have the opposite reaction...ie...active 3D bothers them and passive does not

As mentioned in a point in this article

http://3d-tvbuyingguide.com/3dtv/act...e-glasses.html

I have watched both...though to be clear I have never watched an entire movie in home passive 3D

But...neither active not passive...after 30-45 mins of viewing gives me headaches etc


Warren
post #2265 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghpr13 View Post

hraynor,

I believe you posted one of the best and most informative post in this thread. It's nice to finally have someone tell their experiences with 3D at the movies vs 3D at home. I also wish you well with your new system...Enjoy!

Ghpr13

interesting

spoken by someone who "pretended" that there was no difference in home 3D vs theater 3D

or put another way...I think you asked...."is there really any difference.."...as if you really thought there wasn't after I asked you if you had seen it in your own home

LOL...you should get out and experience the differences....especially before making statements about the formats

FYI...there are myriad of people in this forum...some in this thread even...that have extensive experience with multiple 3D home products and 3D theater

...and hopefully you realize the 3D experience varies by both brand( or monitor) and format...ie..LED, plasma, DLP etc


Warren
post #2266 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by hraynor View Post

The second reason though I believe is that you can't possibly get the same experience from a 55" 3D TV. The whole idea behind 3D is that it immerses you into the content. Unless you're setting pretty close, a 55" TV I don't think can give you that.

You hit on a very good major point. 3D does NOT work properly with small screens. I believe one needs AT LEAST a 73"+ screen in order to view 3D properly. Ideally, a 90"+ would be best but at that size you are going to have to go to projection or DLP.

There is no way you can be immersed in a 50" screen, unless you sat within 3 feet of it.
post #2267 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by turnne1 View Post

interesting

spoken by someone who "pretended" that there was no difference in home 3D vs theater 3D

or put another way...I think you asked...."is there really any difference.."...as if you really thought there wasn't after I asked you if you had seen it in your own home

LOL...you should get out and experience the differences....especially before making statements about the formats

FYI...there are myriad of people in this forum...some in this thread even...that have extensive experience with multiple 3D home products and 3D theater

...and hopefully you realize the 3D experience varies by both brand( or monitor) and format...ie..LED, plasma, DLP etc


Warren

Once again Warren you quote part of a posting out of context to have it benefit your lack of knowledge. Hraynor is the first person in this thread to post what he seen "with his own eyes" as differences he felt were between "home 3D vs theater 3D".

You blast me for asking you, "is there really any difference..", yet you had no real answer to this question. Not only didn't you state any facts, you didn't even state any opinions in answer to the question. Again, Hraynor did.

Warren, you stand on your 3D soapbox yelling at anyone who has anything to say that doesn't fully, 100% support 3D, yet you have nothing of value to add to the discussion. Instead, you're just here to take other people's postings that render opinions on 3D, and try to turn them around to make an argument against what that poster said.

I support 3D. I like the 3D that I have seen. But I, like others here, have some opinions on 3D. Just because we all don't start every line in our post with IMO, doesn't mean we're stating a certified fact. If you can't handle opinions Warren, then leave the discussions for the adults that can.

Even Lee, who is a flag waving 3D supporter will give the good and bad side of 3D. He will give his opinions, and other times give facts that he will back up. And though Lee and me haven't always agree, I respect what he has to say and read all of his posts, cause I never know, I might learn something.

The very sad thing is that this all started Warren, because I said that when watching "Piranha" in 2D, I could tell when a scene would have been in 3D on the 3D version of the movie. For some reason, maybe lack of intelligent, you can't seem to comprehend that if, in the movie, someone grabs a grenade and throws it right at the "viewer", you can pretty well bet the ranch that in the 3D version, that was a 3D effect.

You even challenge me on the price of my HDTV. Just because I stated that back in 2008 my TV was going for $1400.00 at stores like Best Buy, but on the Internet, and going though a store I had purchase other electronics from, I paid $1000.00 for my Samsung LN40A550. You claim by stating the price of my Sammy was $1400.00 was misleading. Well Warren, you can live in your own little world, where you know everything, but that doesn't change the facts in the real world. The retail price of the LN40A550 was $1400.00 in 2008, whether you want to believe it or not and there's nothing misleading in that. I paid a lower price then retail by negotiating with a dealer I had used in the past. I guess you never realized you could do that. I guess when you buy a car, you just pay sticker price.

Grow up Warren...It's time.

Ghpr13
post #2268 of 2615
it will become nice but standards def will be made and glasses need to dissappear!
post #2269 of 2615
yea ill get one once the glasses are not needed at all. I thank Avatar for encouraging the big 3d movement.
post #2270 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lbear View Post

You hit on a very good major point. 3D does NOT work properly with small screens. I believe one needs AT LEAST a 73"+ screen in order to view 3D properly. Ideally, a 90"+ would be best but at that size you are going to have to go to projection or DLP.

There is no way you can be immersed in a 50" screen, unless you sat within 3 feet of it.

So are you speaking from experience or just shooting from from the hip?
post #2271 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by dballs View Post

yea ill get one once the glasses are not needed at all. I thank Avatar for encouraging the big 3d movement.

So you would accept sub-par 3D because there are no glasses involved?
post #2272 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by dballs View Post

yea ill get one once the glasses are not needed at all. I thank Avatar for encouraging the big 3d movement.

You'll be waiting a long time, unfortunately.
post #2273 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghpr13 View Post

Once again Warren you quote part of a posting out of context to have it benefit your lack of knowledge

Ghpr13

LOL

I love it

My lack of knowledge?

and what have I spoken about that I have no personal experience with?

ie....product...pricing..performance..etc..etc

And what did I quote out of context?

I quoted what you said....and the questions you asked me

ie.....that completely wrong $1500-2000 difference you quoted as the difference in 3D televisions last year

you know what I paid..and I am certain I wasn't the only person who paid that amount...

that was out of context?

again...what is the point of a statement that is completely incorrect?

ie...that $1400 Samsung 40 A550...again
I paid less than that from Best Buy for an A750...as i stated here on a few occasions
What part did you miss that I paid $1399 for an 40A750 from Best Buy years ago?
And guess what...I wold bet there are people that paid less than I did at that same time
FYI...a base level Samsung LED today...say a D6000 is better in every way AND less money than the A750 was years ago

But anyway

who cares what the sticker is....transaction prices are what is important
why are using an incorrect price to try to prove a point?

One could assume you don't know any better..I guess

what point is that proving?

You asked .."if there was a difference in home and theater 3D:..as to prove your point

Based on your opinion..that you stated..one would have already thought you knew?
To me your opinion seemed off..based on what I have seen
Thats why I asked if you had seen 3D in your home....because I thought your statement seemed so far from reality

You probably have figured out that is why I asked you the question in the first place...kind of like your statement about added 3D capability for $1500-2000 additional more last year?


Really?

Way off reality...LOL...comb though the Samsung C/7000/8000 forums or the Panasonic VT forums and see how far off you are on price points

You might to preface what you say in the future with

" I have no personal experience with what I am talking about..but here is my opinion"

BTW...I could care less what your opinion in...you make a lot of assumptions about what I think

Its just that you are so incorrect on the product facts/pricing that its just glaring

Whether you like...dislike..or somewhere in between..it truly has no bearing on me

Just use the right facts
Those statements you make about products and pricing are not even in the ball park of reality

Talk about growing up...


Warren
post #2274 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lbear View Post

You hit on a very good major point. 3D does NOT work properly with small screens. I believe one needs AT LEAST a 73"+ screen in order to view 3D properly. Ideally, a 90"+ would be best but at that size you are going to have to go to projection or DLP.

There is no way you can be immersed in a 50" screen, unless you sat within 3 feet of it.

there is a Sony out...in a 32"..EX720..??
I think that is the accurate model #

I saw it at BB...for say $799

I was intrigued and wondered how 3D would look on a 32" LED(edge lit)

Warren
post #2275 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

So you would accept sub-par 3D because there are no glasses involved?

IMO...the passive 3D experience is far less than the active

And it looks like LG and Vizio are selling this format pretty well( since they share panels)

So...there is an element that is willing to accept some diminished performance...at a certain level...for a lower price


Warren
post #2276 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lbear View Post

You hit on a very good major point. 3D does NOT work properly with small screens. I believe one needs AT LEAST a 73"+ screen in order to view 3D properly. Ideally, a 90"+ would be best but at that size you are going to have to go to projection or DLP.

There is no way you can be immersed in a 50" screen, unless you sat within 3 feet of it.

I think this is an interesting point for debate. I have a 90" screen, and yeah, it's plenty immersive. I have no experience with a 50" screen, but I do have a tiny 3D screen with the 3DS. I feel that 3D allows the the game to overcome the size limits of the screen and provide a window into a large, immersive 3D world. If it was 2D, the small screen would bother me. Because it's 3D, it doesn't.

I think this may be very subjective and differ person to person. Some people get the dollhouse effect with 3D, where they perceive things as real but miniaturized. They would describe a 3D racing game as looking like toy cars running around in a diorama. I get the opposite effect though, where 3D seems to make things bigger, blowing the image out beyond the physical size of the screen.

That said, I tend to agree that size matters. I'm just not sure if it's necessarily true.
post #2277 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by turnne1 View Post

a lot of assumptions there....
and again..you must be an employee of one of the TV manufacturers as you seem to have their business model laid out

You seem to know their business plan, inventory schematics,manufacturing costs and marketing scenario in all parts of the world...inclusive of executive statements

I say this because you would have to know this to make most of the statements you just did...with any validity
I guess we are all very fortunate to have you be able to explain the steps of what they will do next...and how it fits with their marketing plans

In the TV biz, no I am not, and neither are you. However I do have a lot of experience in both manufacturing products and inventory control. I also have a few friends that manufacture their own products as well, one of them even has patents on at least 3 of the products that he manufactures. And another one has had his products featured/used as props, on two of the very early episodes of CSI Miami, and have also been sold to several police departments all over the US. Everything I mentioned as far as new products, new products replacing old, product consolidation, product discontinuation, inventory, is all pretty much standard procedure for any business.


And BTW, I will not link you to the websites of my friends that have those products! Why? Because they answer their own emails, and I do not trust you, to not send them obnoxious emails.

Quote:
Originally Posted by turnne1 View Post

Which companies have been losing money for years?

From the chart I posted above.. Vizio is doing well
I don't know what their profits are but they have had solid growth and maintain a good portion of total market share in the US

DUH! Read the links posted previously about who is losing money in their TV divisions.

As for Vizio, they seem to have always had a large market share, most likely due to their very aggressive pricing. But they also have not had very many great reviews for their TV's either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by turnne1 View Post

and since you say they dropped models...I am speaking Samsung

which ones were they?
My count says they actually have more models( total) than they did last year

Different numbers....most just with the addition of a "D" in the product name

But..by my count there are actually more total models than 2010(2D and 3D)

All I did was count the models and tally totals

Good for you, you counted something. I am not going to waste my time to go count what models Samsung had, or now has.


However! What I find funny is your reason you listed for editing you post.

"Last edited by turnne1; 11-14-11 at 06:23 AM.. Reason: missed words"


Hmmm, I still have a copy of it, and in fact you removed a lot of words. As well as removing a few statements where you were also 100% wrong. If you would like, I can still show you what your original post was.
post #2278 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by turnne1 View Post

IMO...the passive 3D experience is far less than the active

And it looks like LG and Vizio are selling this format pretty well( since they share panels)

So...there is an element that is willing to accept some diminished performance...at a certain level...for a lower price


Warren

There is a major difference between glasses based 3D (passive or active) and no glasses 3D (autostereoscopic)
post #2279 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnla View Post

In the TV biz, no I am not, and neither are you. However I do have a lot of experience in both manufacturing products and inventory control. I also have a few friends that manufacture their own products as well, one of them even has patents on at least 3 of the products that he manufactures. And another one has had his products featured/used as props, on two of the very early episodes of CSI Miami, and have also been sold to several police departments all over the US. Everything I mentioned as far as new products, new products replacing old, product consolidation, product discontinuation, inventory, is all pretty much standard procedure for any business.


And BTW, I will not link you to the websites of my friends that have those products! Why? Because they answer their own emails, and I do not trust you, to not send them obnoxious emails.



DUH! Read the links posted previously about who is losing money in their TV divisions.

As for Vizio, they seem to have always had a large market share, most likely due to their very aggressive pricing. But they also have not had very many great reviews for their TV's either.



Good for you, you counted something. I am not going to waste my time to go count what models Samsung had, or now has.


However! What I find funny is your reason you listed for editing you post.

"Last edited by turnne1; 11-14-11 at 06:23 AM.. Reason: missed words"


Hmmm, I still have a copy of it, and in fact you removed a lot of words. As well as removing a few statements where you were also 100% wrong. If you would like, I can still show you what your original post was.

LOL...yes..you are accurate.. I am not in the TV business and don't work for and am not affiliated with any of the manufacturers

That is why I don't make the assumptions you do

I could relate what I do to the TV business..like you did..lol..and try to use it as a basis to make assumptions

But its still not the TV manufacturing business...so I choose not to

I counted the Samsung products from last year and this year and yes there are 3x more that are 3D capable
Simple as that...no assumption there on my part

Vizio is clearly taking market share..how they are doing it really doesn't matter does it?
The nature of business is there are winners and losers for many different reasons..in any industry
I assume they are making profits..where as you say the others are not?
They have had some highly rated and very aggressively priced full array LED TVs..such as this one

http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-t...-34122871.html

I have some personal friends that own its non 3D predecessor
its a nice set and one that I would have no issue owning

My biggest gripe is the silver finish it has across the bottom

As for me removing statements....no
actually it was due to the fact that I added words

Since you are taking the time to keep copies of my posts
Something that I find both creepy and hilarious at the same time.
.perhaps you can tell me the time/date stamp of when you saved and when I corrected it?

because basically..you are wrong


anything else I can correct you on?

oh...and BTW...as you can see I did "missed words" on this message as well

I added the statement about not liking the silver finish across the bottom of my friends Vizio LED TV

Warren
post #2280 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

There is a major difference between glasses based 3D (passive or active) and no glasses 3D (autostereoscopic)

I have only seen active sets( I own 2) and a passive( a friends LG 55"5600 LED)

I only watched the LG for about 30-45 mins and as I said before..there is a difference

I have never seen no glasses 3D...so can't comment on that with any validity

Warren
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Community News & Polls
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › 3D Television - Fad or Here To Stay?