3D Television - Fad or Here To Stay? - Page 33

Originally Posted by turnne1

agreed somewhat
However there are millions and millions of subscribers to cable and satellite systems. These people are serviced by corporations who are able to sell millions( if not billions) of programming each year and make a profit.This is likely to be the group that would spend more to get an upscale TV and are more in tune to video quality/features etc
Direct TV already has several channels that are broadcast in 3D...and I sure Dish and Time Warner are right there as well
I don't think you need the OTA group to make 3D a success...who that is watching OTA is buying a top end TV?
I don't see that being the case very often

If a significant portion of those subscription service viewers jump on the band wagon that is all they need
Remember these are top end sets...likely much profitable...that offer 3D capability


Warren

Originally Posted by Ghpr13

When & if 3D TV programming does come to Dish (which I subscribe to) & cable, I have a feeling it will be at an added cost like premium channels, IE: HBO, Showtime, etc. Not being a Directv sub, I'm not sure how they're handling their 3D programming, but I will try to find out.

Ghpr13 (John)

Originally Posted by penngray

Its subscription based on Cox Cable, I have to order it as an add on.

Originally Posted by Ghpr13

Warren,
IMO,the portions of your reply that I highlighted in bold tend to go against your first statement. Originally, you had seem to make the case that "lower" cost TV's would become 3D capable next year, thus allowing "mainstream" consumers to have the 3D technology which would help to support 3D.
Now you stated that it will be the consumers that purchase the "top end sets" that will support 3D TV.

When & if 3D TV programming does come to Dish (which I subscribe to) & cable, I have a feeling it will be at an added cost like premium channels, IE: HBO, Showtime, etc. Not being a Directv sub, I'm not sure how they're handling their 3D programming, but I will try to find out.

Ghpr13 (John)

Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin

Hi Warren,

We might not disagree as much as originally thought. I realize you are talking about advances in picture quality regarding a 58 inch set when I was thinking in terms of those in the 46 inch and lower range. Indeed, the larger the set, the more problems that can affect picture quality which are either masked or not an issue with those smaller sizes.

Even from a layman's perspective, it is easy to understand there is more distance between the 1080 lines of resolution on a 58 inch screen compared to smaller units. The bigger the screen, the more the picture will slightly appear as being zoomed or stretched with a loss of detail. Hence, the need for 240hz due to motion artificats being more apparent than on smaller sized unites; the need for true 1080p bluray as opposed to upconverting DVD since a large set will bring out the limitations of upconverted 480p which are masked on screens of a lesser size.

So could it be that very large screens were not as good as their smaller counterparts from a few years ago? And that's why most feel picture quality has not changed that much over the years since consumer statistics show that 37 to 40 inches is still the most popular size among buyers? And with the differences in picture quality in those sets purchased even five years ago being minimal (IMHO and others) even if the price of a 42inch 3D drops to about $800, most will not want to spend that much and discard their current one.

Ciao,
Joe

Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin

Just noticed that Cablevision of New York was broadcasting the PGA in 3D. We have a dedicated channel exclusvely for 3D at no additional cost.

Originally Posted by Ghpr13

Part of the problem is using the word "Fad" in this poll and thread.

As much as I don't think 3D will become the standard in movie/TV media, I don't think of it as a "Fad". 3D has been around for a long time...It's a fun technology, that Hollywood and others have played with for many, many years. (I still have my 3D glasses from a showing of "The Creature from the Black Lagoon" on channel 32 in Chicago back in the late 70's. I also have the 3D glasses for the 3D showing of "Home Improvement" on ABC one year!)

It's here to stay, but it will be of a limited appeal to a just a few consumers. IMO, high end HT owners and gamers.

Yes, there will continue to be 3D movies put out by Hollywood, some equal to "Avatar", some crap. I'm sure there will be more major sporting events in 3D, and of course, I feel the biggest 3D medium will be in gaming.

But until the 3D technology can be made for home viewing in a practical way, a way that an average family can not only afford it but use it without any "caveats", it will just be "an extra". A nice "extra" for some, but not for everyone.

Ghpr13

Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin

"but here is the bottom line...just like anything else..cars , audio , TV..or frankly any other consumer product
You will have those that are very picky about every little detail and will want the best of the best and will look for no compromise offerings"

Hi Warren,

Do not think of yourself as being "very picky".

My brother is the same way when it comes to audio equipment. He was a student of classical music who studied at Julliard Prep and the Manhattan School of Music and has a professional ear for picking up things you and I would hardly notice. For example, as a kid he insisted his record player was slightly slow - a technician tested it and found that it was indeed playing back at 33 RPM, not 33-1/3. Now on countless occasions he has replaced receivers, speakers and pre-amps in order to improve his audio enjoyment (resulting in me getting more expensive audio equipment at no cost!).

But again, what he understandibly hears as improvement in audio is also understandibly barely noticable to me. The same standard can apply in this conversation of ours. I sense you are a videophile, with visual perception capable of catching things that most of us wouldn't. In technical terms, many professionals (including some in this forum) acknowlege the enhancements made over the years are noticable more in laboratory tests than visually and are used primarily as selling points. So, what might seem minute to the average consumer (like me) could be regarded as major to those whose standards are higher (like you - and I'm saying that with respect as per my brother with that 1/3 less RPM). That's why I say I have noticed little improvement in picture quality on HD monitors over the past five years (whereas I do with the advances in digital mastering and other areas that deal with source materials) -- we are looking at it from two different perspectives.

While I agree the quality in lower-tier units has drasticly improved over the past five years, I also believe this is due not to breakthroughs in development but rather (as you point out) advanced technology that used to be exclusive in high-end sets having become more cost effecient to produce.

Warren, I was surpised when you said you found no difference in sharpness and detail on 58 inch sets compared to the otherwise equivalent models of 40. Since the lines of resolution remain the same, wouldn't visual sharpness increase as screen size is reduced? CNET and other sites state that for smaller sets like my 32 inch Samsung LCD, 720p is sufficient enough but as screen size becomes bigger the need for 1080p becomes more necessary. So, if 720p is less efficient starting at (let's say) 40 inches, isn't there a size when 1080p starts to become less efficient as well?

Ciao,
Joe

Originally Posted by turnne1

Joe....allow me to clarify
I have never compared the same set of say a 32 to a 55 of the same model
I use those sizes and they would equate to last years Samsung B650 series
58 would be a plasma ...so not good for comparing

I would argue that the picture quality...good or bad..is the same on that 32 and 55inch
However..it will likely be much more noticeable on the 55

That being said the whole 32 to 55 comparo is a moot point as no one will be comparing those
What is more like to happen is someone comparing different TV of say a 32 and 37 inch or a 55 to another 55

I will also say this......if you are going to look at a lower quality picture it is much better viewed on a smaller TV
A lower quality picture and additional items like 120hz( or 240) don't matter nearly as much..to my eye..on a set smaller than 40inch

Joe..I think if you look at what Cnet stated there was a correlation in how far you sat away from the 32in TV before your eyes could notice the difference in 1080P vs 720P

Joe...another difference today..and I think you touched on this
The lower quality sets( 3rd tier) have the picture quality and features of the best ones from 2-3 years ago
In the past that was not the case.
Imagine if>>>> That Sony etc that you purchased was the best picture out there for many years...that was the reality 15 years ago.
Today>>> Imagine if you paid $1000 for that 36 Sony with the great picture and a no name brand had the equivalent picture of that 2 year old Sony TV for $350 now...that is today's reality

My bet is that Insignia has 3D capable televisions for 2011 for the same price ( or lower) than their current models of the same size

And with the Walmart type of mind set, brand loyalty is not a big deal with the mass market..it does not matter what the label on the front says

Warren

Originally Posted by Ghpr13

Part of the problem is using the word "Fad" in this poll and thread.

As much as I don't think 3D will become the standard in movie/TV media, I don't think of it as a "Fad". 3D has been around for a long time...It's a fun technology, that Hollywood and others have played with for many, many years.

Originally Posted by CT_Wiebe

RE: Screen size -- I have a 32" 1080p Samsung LED HDTV set in my LR, along with a 1080p front projector (on a 106" screen, 11). My previous 32" set was a LG 768p HDTV, which the Samsung replaced. I also did not think that there would be any noticeable difference in those 2 LCD TVs from 12' away. To my surprise, there was a noticeable difference (only on quality HDTV feeds), but it was subtle.

Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin

Or, the Samsung could have been more properly adjusted than the LG (a common practice used by stores trying to sell a specific set that is over-stocked).
.

Originally Posted by turnne1

Where are you getting this information from?

Samsung TV's have a "store demo" mode and have for at least 3 models years....I am not sure if I have ever seen one in BB( or any other place) that was on display and not in this mode. Even if you make adjustments to the TV it will go back to Store demo mode after about 15 mins....which is in essence its brightest "torch" mode desired for bright store display area

I am fairly certain that LG has the same functionality as I am sure there are others as well

In light of today's educated consumer who does a lot of their homework before they even walk in the store..I really doubt much of this happens
Think about it...even if the store was "overstocked" on a particular model and made some "adjustments" what will likely happen in today's world is the person could walk out of the store and buy it online for less.
The store still would remain "overstocked"


Warren

Originally Posted by Dougofthenorth

I have also read that depending on screen size, resolution & viewing distance there is a relationship to how viewing benefit is maximized

one such calculator is at http://myhometheater.homestead.com/v...alculator.html

Originally Posted by Dougofthenorth

Joe - OK

But then why is there a resolution referenced in the bottom of the Calculator?

for a 50" screen

Viewing Distances Based on Visual Acuity
17.4 Feet Maximum Viewing Distance for NTSC/PAL(720x480/720x576)
4.5 Feet Maximum Viewing Distance for HDTV (Fully resolved 1080i; 1920 x 1080)

Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin

Hi Doug,

Don't forget, I was referring to 720p on a 32 inch set, not one at 50 inches.

A more interesting question is whether or not 3D sets in the 32 inch range need to be at 1080p or could remain at 720p with a higher refresh rate - not at this point since 3D is only a feature on high-tier sets, but down the road if 3D becomes a standard feature.

Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin

Warren,

A salesman can try pushing a certain model, even if the result is not successful.... And yes, my purchasing has been on-line too, better price, no tax and often free shipping which is why another reason why so many stores are now overstocked and conduct business on line as well..

But I took it that the comparision between the 720p LG and the 1080p Samsung was done at home.

Originally Posted by turnne1

Sure they can......anything is possible
I have often heard( and asked for) the opinion of a store employee as to what they think...in fact I have asked the same questions to two store employees at Magnolia (BB) before and they had different preferences
Both defended their preferences ,as we spoke as a group of three..and told me the specific facts as why they were what they were
The two products in question were top end LED and Plasma products..ie..the BMW and Mercedes Benz of their lines...both excellent products
But like the cars people have their taste and opinions

Now...someone changing the settings on a TV because their showroom is overstocked to "trick" you. Thats a whole different deal...I really doubt there is much of that in todays educated/online research consumer world

Do you feel you have been treated in that way in the past?
Its never happened to me or anyone I know


Warren