or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Plasma Flat Panel Displays › Which display wins the shootout? Let's have some fun. Make your predictions here.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Which display wins the shootout? Let's have some fun. Make your predictions here. - Page 42

post #1231 of 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by sillysally View Post

Can anybody point out where the before and after calibration reports are for the VT/ZT60 and the F8500 from the shoot out.

Thanks.

ss

They havent been posted yet frown.gif and I havent seen Robert post when they will either. Hopefully by the end of the week along with the shootout videos..
post #1232 of 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by David_B View Post

You haven't seen 3D until you've seen it at a 2 projector Imax theater.

It's that much better.

I hated 3D at the Prometheus showing I saw. It wasn't IMAX so I will have to reserve judgement until I see a proper 3D setup but I still don't think I'm going to enjoy the 3D approach from what I've seen.


Still by far the best cinematic experience was the Nolan Batman movies in 70mm IMAX. I know 70mm has no real future do to cost but I would love to see a digital equivalent in the future(I guess that would require a 16k camera).
post #1233 of 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by degobah77 View Post

Seems everyone has an agenda. I'm just stating the facts.


So said the pot calling the kettle... Naive we're not..
post #1234 of 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by koan View Post

^ ^ ^ ^
Gettin' old.

And better with age because I don't let anything get to me....

How is the 3D on Disney's Tron? I borrowed the disc, but ended up engrossed in Samsara last night.
post #1235 of 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by degobah77 View Post

And better with age because I don't let anything get to me....

How is the 3D on Disney's Tron? I borrowed the disc, but ended up engrossed in Samsara last night.

I would rate it as average
post #1236 of 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by koan View Post

^ ^ ^ ^
Gettin' old.

Because people (like you), reply to it! tongue.gif
post #1237 of 1489
[quote name="rogo" url="/t/1472028/when given the choice straight up, it's often the case that only a minority of people select the 3-D presentation.. That's data. And it speaks volumes. [/quote]

+1

Also, back 5 to 10 years ago when big movies (or any movies) were released in theaters, I never recall moviegoers clamoring for a 3D presentation!!! NO boycotts of movies because they weren't offered in 3D as well. Wonder why??? tongue.gif

Rogo, you are correct, if 3D went away today, .01 of 1% would care. That being said, it's a nice, gimmicky option for those that want to take advantage of it. Enjoy!
post #1238 of 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by degobah77 View Post

And better with age because I don't let anything get to me....

How is the 3D on Disney's Tron? I borrowed the disc, but ended up engrossed in Samsara last night.

I would rate it as average

Tron was not 3D good imo either.
post #1239 of 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle_2 View Post

I love how 3D haters keep saying Hollywood is forcing us to see 3D. Forcing? Really? Nobody is forcing anybody to see 3D. Some films (a small minority) are getting released in 3D to give people a choice to see it in 3D. Nobody is being forced into seeing anything in 3D. People really hate that some people are actually enjoying 3D films. I've been watching 3D IMAX documentaries long before Real-D brought Hollywood 3D films back into the spotlight. Nobody forced me into it.

don't worry, this is just history repeating itself as it tends to do - the old mould crumbles and makes way for the new. Color film didn't take off for quite a while either and technicolor rarely made a profit for a good many years. Directors also need to rethink how they film for the format. Some films just aren't going to be good in 3d. Some films aren't even good in color imo (Casablanca).
post #1240 of 1489
It's definitely a nice option to have. But 3D Blurays are overly expensive. Luckily, they're usually on sale for half the price that's listed...
post #1241 of 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

You think that because movies are being made in 3-D and some portion of 3-D movies actually sell tickets in 3-D that this proves 3-D demand is real.

Of course it does. Are you seriously suggesting people are paying an increased price for something they didn't want in the first place? And furthermore that they continue to repeat their mistake? I must say this is one of the first times I've ever heard someone make an argument that sales of something doesn't prove, or at least suggest, demand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

It doesn't
Again, you are making a Logic 101 error here. A movie opens and half the screens showing it play it in 3-D. If the movie is popular, it's axiomatic that thousands of tickets get sold to the 3-D showing. What's remarkable is how often fewer than half of filmgoers want to see the 3-D version. In other words, when given the choice straight up, it's often the case that only a minority of people select the 3-D presentation.. That's data. And it speaks volumes.
I've tried really hard to explain how the tickets work. It's impossible for them not to work -- somewhat. What the evidence is showing is that (1) the percentage of screens with 3-D is not increasing for a typical release (2) the portion of tickets sold for the 3-D showings is also not increasing. Again, try to understand what that means.

You're making an error based on assumption. You assume that those buying 2D tickets want to see 2D and that the 3D ticket buyers are some how an axiomatic result, or that they were somehow forced to see 3D because there weren't 2D tickets available. Massive assumption and intuitively doesn't make sense. You do know 3D tickets cost more right? Cost would far more concisely and likely explain the difference in numbers than some theory that 3D viewers were somehow herded into those theatres due to some...well I don't know what. Why exactly do you believe the 3D tickets sell? You maintain that those people didn't want to actually see 3D. So why again did they pay the higher ticket price? You telling me it's because all the 2D tickets were sold out? Baloney.

I hate to ask where you are getting your data from, but i can't find anything to support it. Everything I see says 3D sales are going up, more movies are being produced in it, and more theatres are adopting the technology. Maybe not in some places, but here in LA way more theatres have 3D screens than used to be the case. Same is true of IMAX screens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

As for BluRays, more or less no one is buying them.
It's a lot less huge than you think. And it's being forced on the viewing public at this point to extract extra dollars.

You'd have to prove this to me. I'm buying them. The Amazon reviews certainly seem to suggest people are buying them. They are getting made in larger numbers - look at the Pixar back catalog being done in 3D Companies generally stop making things people aren't buying. They don't continue to attempt to force people to buy those products, which we both know isn't possible anyway. The prices for 3D discs is higher and 2D is still available on its own. Sounds like the opposite of forcing and indeed offering choice. So if nobody is buying, then aren't they losing money repeatedly? They aren't dumb. Sounds like you don't buy 3D discs as you mentioned renting and buying from ebay. But I certainly buy them as do fellow patrons at stores I frequent and friends I have. Maybe you are looking at this too subjectively perhaps, I don't know. Anyway, where's the data showing that 3D blu-rays don't sell, other than your mere statement of it? And for lord's sake, it's relatively new. People weren't buying BD titles in large numbers either compared to DVD early on. Some made exactly the same argument you are making. But as the players became ubiquitous and more people experienced the benefits it slowly gained ground until a tipping point was reached. Surely you must see the similarities.

But let's go ahead look at some actual data: Amazon reported that both Life of Pi and Hobbit 3D discs were in their top ten home movie sellers. Recent films like Prometheus, Avengers, and Titanic sold anywhere between 25-45% of their numbers in 3D. And these versions cost substantially more and yet still these figures. How can "nobody buying" turn into these figures?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

The thought experiment is: What percentage of the moviegoing audience would fail to show up next weekend if all 3-D presentations were instead presented in 2-D? The answer is: >99% I'd estimate.
Estimate based on what? I'd 100% disagree. Using myself as an example I'd stay home and watch it on my TV. 3D makes theatres a destination for moviegoers again. Studios know this and theatres know this. Ticket sales were waning until there was a reason for people to leave their home theatres. I'd say this is common knowledge in the industry. It's IMAX's entire business model for crying out loud and how they got a foothold in mainstream cinema.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

We'll agree to disagree. There is no increase in enjoyment from watching 2 people sitting at a table having a conversation in 3-D. Is it "dimensional"? Yes. Is it better? A century of film says no.

Again you could have made the same argument for color vs. balack and white. I'm sure plenty did. But if I feel more like I'm there at the table, then yes, I contend that it is better. The century of film has seen advances in technology all along the way. It has not been a static art form. A century of film making is not a single static example, it's a continuum and one which continues up to this very moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I have not seen The Hobbit yet. Mostly because I heard the film wasn't very good. Will I? Perhaps at some point; I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings films immensely.

I'd recommend you see it. I thought it was great. I saw it in a 48FPS 3D presentation at Arclight and I own the 3D Blu-Ray. It's the "immersive" that I'm talking about. One of the best examples yet of 3D "done right". It's also a great movie IMO, but you have to really like that sort of thing and have patience for long movies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

To me, from everything I know, Life of Pi would not be worth making or viewing in 2-D. But in 3-D, it sounds like a wonder. I will be watching it soon, at home, in 3-D, on my 65" plasma, in 5.1 sound.

I'd completely agree with you. 3D is integral to the enjoyment of the film IMO. As a lover of film, which surely you are, I'd be surprised if at least some of it was not indeed a wonder. It's another of the few examples of live action films doing 3D right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

They may be right, but I doubt it. Cameron makes movies pretty rarely, by the way.
I discussed this a lot in the Flat Panel Tech area. I don't believe this is going to get past niche either. I think the "future of gaming" is mobile devices and that the entire next generation of consoles is going to sell far less than the previous one. It's possible I'm wrong and that it will sell as well. What seems completely impossible is that it will grow bigger than the previous generation. The "expanded future of gaming" is certainly not coming from enclosed spaces where people hide in goggles. That said, I hope Oculus Rift (and similar solutions) are a huge success. The technology is awesome.

Well there's always what the masses do and what the enthusiasts do. Sure, mobile gaming is on the rise and will be part of the future. People in advanced goggle rigs will also be part of that future. Most people listen to music primarily on crappy earbuds on mp3 players. But we'd both agree I'm sure that there are still those that appreciate hi-fi systems. Smaller numbers yes, but more loyal spenders of dollars. Console gaming outshines PC gaming in numbers by far, but the hardcore enthusiast and the early adopters are still PC based in their gaming rigs. Again, because something is not the leading choice by the masses doesn't mean the niches go away or don't sustain or indeed thrive. You and I and many on this forum are living proof of that. wink.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Because they do prove it.
Avatar was a breakthrough. We were all curious and wanted to go to Pandora with the guy who made the most successful movie ever before Avatar. The movie, incidentally, doesn't hold up. The Hobbit was a box-office success because of Lord of the Rings fans. And even with that, it wasn't that great a success. Not by studio standards. The Hobbit didn't outgross Skyfall, was destroyed by The Hunger Games and didn't outgross Return of The King when adjusted for ticket prices and 3-D premiums. In fact, including that, it didn't come close.

But being the biggest seller doesn't prove anything about the runner-ups. The Hobbit was still a success. And of course a 3 hour fantasy film based on a 3rd of a novel isn't going to sell as many tickets as a big budget Bond film or a Twilight weekend teen flick. It doesn't have the mass appeal. But that doesn't make it unsuccessful or not viable. Also preliminary reviews from so-called experts proclaimed The Hobbit was "boring".
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

No, it isn't. Let me give you an example. Honda sells cars with 3 trim levels usually. In the top trim level there is, say, leather seating and some upgraded sound system. People buy it mostly for the leather seating and the collision avoidance system. they build 20% of the cars with the highest trim level. You want an Accord, 20% of buyers are getting a top-end one. No way to avoid it. Since there are enough people to afford them and enough people who want Accords and enough people who value leather seats and collision avoidance, this works out every year. Do we know that anyone values upgraded sound systems? Actually, we don't. And more specifically, we certainly don't have a clue if 20% of people do. It could be 0%. Or 5%. Or 10%.
Nearly every mid-range and high-end TV has 3-D built in. 3-D media is not movie at all. 3-D cable programming barely exists. How can you conclude people are excited about this? Because studios are forcing upgraded sound systems on leather-seat buyers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

It comes from CEA data. There are about 120 million TV households in the U.S. by the way.

I'm aware. That's what i based my figure on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Please don't put words into my mouth.

I'm not sure where I put words in your mouth (it;s a long discussion we've had) but I apologize for wherever I did so. Your argument using the analogy of cars doesn't really hold up. Here's why: When you are talking about a car, you are talking about numerous features in a package and yes it's impossible to tell what singular feature the buyer wanted. But 3D is one thing that the buyer either consciously buys or not. Now I'm talking about movies, and media here. As for TVs, sure, it comes with the device. I never meant to suggest people were buying 3D as a feature in TVs and I don't' think I ever contended that anywhere. In fact I didn't even buy 3D as a feature myself because I figured it would suck. But when I got a 2012 3D TV and tried it...I was blown away. What I'm saying is that once it falls in their lap and they try it, they like it. Anecdotal yes, but I stand by it and I think there are those on this very thread that have attested to that fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

It is a money grab. But I'm not saying people who enjoy it are "falling for gimmicks". They are legitimately allowed to enjoy it or whatever they want to enjoy (so long as their enjoyment doesn't involve harming people or animals).
I don't. So please don't make that mistake again.

Thanks for clearing that up. i agree about the animals part, the people not so much. j/k cool.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

There might be a fair criticism there; it's a close call. I stand by my remark that virtually no one would miss 3-D if it went away from theaters. That perhaps overstates the case. I mean there are people who are going to miss "Body of Proof", which was just canceled by ABC. So surely there are people who would miss 3-D in theaters. I just believe -- quite strongly -- they'd keep buying 2-D movie tickets. If I overstated the case with my language, I do apologize.

I guess it comes down to how you define "virtually no one". I don't often bother going to a theater unless the film is in 3D, or maybe in IMAX or has Dolby Atmos or other techs I can't get at home. Why wouldn't I just stay home and watch it on my TV otherwise? So I'd care. Theatres are always striving to offer people an experience they can't get at home. It's the core reason for the rise of IMAX as a mainstream movie house chain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

That a certain number of seats are sold only in 3-D and that a certain number of people are willing to pay the price rather than leave the theater or wait for a later show. It doesn't prove what you think it proves. While it is certainly true that some of the people are willing to pay the premium for the 3-D itself, it is at least equally true that a significant number of these people are simply unwilling to leave leave the theater or wait for a later show simply to save a few dollars per ticket.
That people are going to 3-D movies in some quantity doesn't prove that people are actually choosing 3-D in that quantity or -- more important -- a priori desiring 3-D in that quantity. And the fact that nearly all releases are still being offered in 2-D at equivalent or greater quality is actually proof that intrinsic demand for 3-D is either not growing or possibly falling. In other words, people may be resisting paying for it actively.

Yeah I get the argument you're making - I just don't accept it as at all likely, and I think it's based an a pretty big, and (again) unlikely assumption. I highly doubt many 3D ticket sales are due to people who couldn't get a ticket to a 2D seating and were willing to just sigh and fork out the extra cash. This is a real stretch IMO and is kind of at the crux of the debate. It would be a hard thing to prove either way. I don't think that many shows are sold out to where viewers can only opt for 3D. In fact, I've had exactly the opposite experience where 3D was sold out but there were 2D available so my own experience seems to suggest otherwise. Of course my own experience may not be at all indicative of others, but it's all I have to go on here. Anyway, I rarely see sold out showings and even when they do happen they are short-lived, maybe for the first weekend and not at all afterward. Based on your "availability argument", what would be sustaining the percentage of 3D sales beyond that other than actual desire to see the 3D version? I'll go out on a limb and suggest people are paying the higher prices for the 3D tickets because they actually want what they are paying for. Crazy I know. wink.gif

Edited by endlessender - 5/16/13 at 11:11am
post #1242 of 1489
Wow this thread has totally gone off topic. I think now that the shootout is over might be time to close it.
post #1243 of 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5150zx View Post

[

+1

Also, back 5 to 10 years ago when big movies (or any movies) were released in theaters, I never recall moviegoers clamoring for a 3D presentation!!! NO boycotts of movies because they weren't offered in 3D as well. Wonder why??? tongue.gif
y!

Uhm, could it be that it wasn't available and they hadn't experienced it yet? rolleyes.gif
post #1244 of 1489
How about keeping the 3D arguments in PM or on relevant threads?
post #1245 of 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calilife17 View Post

Wow this thread has totally gone off topic. I think now that the shootout is over might be time to close it.
not yet...

Quote:
Originally Posted by repete66211 View Post

How about keeping the 3D arguments in PM or on relevant threads?

yes, good suggestion to avoid thread from going OT
post #1246 of 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by repete66211 View Post

How about keeping the 3D arguments in PM or on relevant threads?

It all started with the question of how much should 3D performance be factored in to the shoot out and the amount with which it should weighted in relation to the overall quality of the TVs in question.

It was suggested, in short, that it didn't matter. And the ensuing discussion of the merits of 3D was borne out of that. So it's somewhat related to the original thread. One could argue that it's as relevant as how important black levels or contrast ratio are to the overall quality of a TV and how much those factors are weighted in a quality judgement of a particular set. Or a discussion of the merits of a sharpness control etc.

Not saying it doesn't deserve its own thread, but it's not entirely unrelated to the subject at hand. It's just strayed a bit. cool.gif

Having said that, I'll certainly do my part here to get things back to the core topic by dropping further discussion.
post #1247 of 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrubin View Post

not yet...
yes, good suggestion to avoid thread from going OT

Roger that Mark.
post #1248 of 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5150zx View Post

Because people (like you), reply to it! tongue.gif
Yeah, I know the drill. Ignoring him before didn't do any good; thought maybe a short educational message might be of benefit. wink.gif
post #1249 of 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by koan View Post

Yeah, I know the drill. Ignoring him before didn't do any good; thought maybe a short educational message might be of benefit. wink.gif

They do have a great feature that is called "block member" wink.gif works wonders sometimes smile.gif
post #1250 of 1489
OK, so the questions of black levels, brightness, ABL, input lag, color accuracy, filters etc. have been addressed. One factor I haven't seen discussed* is image retention. I realize it's hard to address this since the ZT60 hasn't been released yet but does anyone have anything to offer on how the F8500 and VT60 compare when it comes to IR? I have a 5 year old Samsung that has limited, temporary IR but as I recall Samsung and Panasonic have had mixed results in the last few years with regards to image retention.

*I've only made it to page 33.
post #1251 of 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by repete66211 View Post

*I've only made it to page 33.

I've read the entire thing, read pro and amateur reviews on many other sites, seen them in person, and am still no closer to deciding which TV to get :/
post #1252 of 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by koan View Post

Speaking for my family of four, our general preference is to see a movie in 3D, but half of the time we choose not to because of the high ticket price (x 4) or because the 2D version is showing at a more convenient time. I'm generally ambivalent because of the decreased brightness of a number of 3D movies we've seen, but my wife and daughters are not a bit ambivalent. They would always choose 3D, all other things being equal.

A totally legitimate perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post


CNET seems to agree with the notion that the F8500 is the better 3D HDTV:

So with the caveat that I haven't experienced an F8500 in 3-D (but with the further caveat that the apparent reduction in viewing angles of the F8000 LCD is real), if one has a viewing area of any width at all, I'd surmise that the F8500 is probably unequivocally the best 3-D choice overall for the year. That said, for someone who views a lot of 3D, a passive LCD would be very appealing too, even given the loss of resolution. The other benefits are strong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by endlessender View Post

Of course it does. Are you seriously suggesting people are paying an increased price for something they didn't want in the first place? And furthermore that they continue to repeat their mistake? I must say this is one of the first times I've ever heard someone make an argument that sales of something doesn't prove, or at least suggest, demand.

Yes, I am saying that. Apparently, my argument -- which is sound mathematically, statistically, economically and logically -- is not sufficiently well crafted to illuminate the point to you. I'll take the blame for that. I'm also going to try to draw down these comments to begin exiting the 3-D discussion from this thread per moderator -- and forum member -- desire.
Quote:
You're making an error based on assumption. You assume that those buying 2D tickets want to see 2D and that the 3D ticket buyers are some how an axiomatic result, or that they were somehow forced to see 3D because there weren't 2D tickets available. Massive assumption and intuitively doesn't make sense. You do know 3D tickets cost more right? Cost would far more concisely and likely explain the difference in numbers than some theory that 3D viewers were somehow herded into those theatres due to some...well I don't know what. Why exactly do you believe the 3D tickets sell? You maintain that those people didn't want to actually see 3D. So why again did they pay the higher ticket price? You telling me it's because all the 2D tickets were sold out? Baloney.

Actually, that's exactly how it works. There is an economic concept called scarcity and another called "tying" and both are at play. At many multiplexes you can see the movie at 8pm in 3-D or at 9pm in 2-D. Yes, it costs more at 8pm, but some people value going at 8pm or are already there at 8pm or can't go at 9pm. In some limited cases, yes, price sensitive buyers even choose 3-D when 2-D tickets are sold out, but that's less important than the simple fact of limiting the availability of 2-D to begin with. The car analogy applies. If BMW builds 25% of the 5 series with a larger engine, they'll sell 25% with a larger engine. They may have to adjust or "perfect" pricing to do it, but there is simply no way for 85% of buyers to opt for a smaller engine and the 25% who opt for the larger engine simply pay more (even if they don't all pay quite as much as the nominal sticker indicates).
Quote:
I hate to ask where you are getting your data from, but i can't find anything to support it. Everything I see says 3D sales are going up, more movies are being produced in it, and more theatres are adopting the technology. Maybe not in some places, but here in LA way more theatres have 3D screens than used to be the case. Same is true of IMAX screens.

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/television/3d-ticket-sales-hit-a-record-low-in-us-is-pricing-the-problem-1088599
http://www.display-central.com/free-news/republished-news/3d-films-losing-their-appeal-as-uk-ticket-sales-slump-by-a-third/

This one is really, really, damning:

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/3D-Man-of-Steel-The-Avengers-Dark-Knight-Rises-Iron-Man-3

"But while 3D helped bolster the film industry in the wake of "Avatar"s' massive success, the format's contribution to the overall box office in the United States and Canada was flat in 2012 at $1.8 billion." Despite more 3-D releases!

Maybe fans should move to China or Russia?

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/3d-films-still-hits-foreign-audiences-domestically-its-different-story-83981

"In China and Russia, 3D showings of films routinely contribute between 80 percent to 90 percent of their box office take, according to Michael Lewis, the CEO and chairman of RealD. In the United States, that figure is between 40 percent to 60 percent." Even though the tickets are much more expensive for 3-D in the U.S., they still account for an average of half the gate. That shows fewer than half the people will pay for 3-D, Often times, half the screens are in 3-D at urban multiplexes; so this speaks volumes -- loudly.
Quote:
You'd have to prove this to me. I'm buying them. The Amazon reviews certainly seem to suggest people are buying them.

Typically, about 1/3 of people choose the 3-D BluRay. http://www.tmcnet.com/topics/articles/2013/03/18/330805-with-strong-dvd-blu-ray-sales-3d-home.htm

Let's assume some portion of people are buying it "just in case" they ever watch in 3-D. So, in fairness, when 3-D exists, about 1/4 of people are probably looking to get it for home use -- assuming those people are buying BluRays, which is already a small subset of the movie-watching audience. For example, I know no one in my circle of friends who does this regularly outside of kids films any more.
Quote:
Estimate based on what? I'd 100% disagree. Using myself as an example I'd stay home and watch it on my TV. 3D makes theatres a destination for moviegoers again. Studios know this and theatres know this. Ticket sales were waning until there was a reason for people to leave their home theatres. I'd say this is common knowledge in the industry. It's IMAX's entire business model for crying out loud and how they got a foothold in mainstream cinema.

We saw Iron Man in "xD" at CineMark. It's not Imax, but sort of a poor man's version. No one was especially excited about the upcharge, but it's a nicer theater. Read those articles I linked on 3-D above and you'll see this approach to extracting more money is likely a bad long-term move. The movie business keeps catering to a flat or slightly shrinking pool of patrons and extracting a few more dollars from each of them. There are some industry folks who say if 10% of people stop going, 40% of theaters go away. If I may loop this back to being on topic, all the more reason to great a home-theater display!
Quote:
I'd recommend you see it. I thought it was great. I saw it in a 48FPS 3D presentation at Arclight and I own the 3D Blu-Ray. It's the "immersive" that I'm talking about. One of the best examples yet of 3D "done right". It's also a great movie IMO, but you have to really like that sort of thing and have patience for long movies.

I'll get around to The Hobbit. On my "insufficiently bright" VT50. smile.gif The eBay seller sent us the wrong discs for Life of Pi (the 2-D version.) frown.gif So my viewing of that is delayed -- again.
Quote:
But being the biggest seller doesn't prove anything about the runner-ups. The Hobbit was still a success. And of course a 3 hour fantasy film based on a 3rd of a novel isn't going to sell as many tickets as a big budget Bond film or a Twilight weekend teen flick. It doesn't have the mass appeal. But that doesn't make it unsuccessful or not viable. Also preliminary reviews from so-called experts proclaimed The Hobbit was "boring".

I skipped the gaming section to cut this down and make this an exit discussion... Look, The Hobbit made some money, it just wasn't the blockbuster anyone hoped. That doesn't mean it wasn't pretty good. As a LOTR fan, though, based on the previews and buzz, I wasn't moved to go see it. I'll get to it; I just think it's telling in this case I was the marginal moviegoer who skipped a theater presentation of a new advance in filmmaking in a genre I like.
Quote:
Yeah I get the argument you're making - I just don't accept it as at all likely, and I think it's based an a pretty big, and (again) unlikely assumption. I highly doubt many 3D ticket sales are due to people who couldn't get a ticket to a 2D seating and were willing to just sigh and fork out the extra cash. This is a real stretch IMO and is kind of at the crux of the debate. It would be a hard thing to prove either way.

It's not that hard to prove with regression, actually. Getting the data would be hard. But the data in the articles I linked above is very damning even without regression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calilife17 View Post

Wow this thread has totally gone off topic. I think now that the shootout is over might be time to close it.

We're going to stop this 3-D stuff after this post. If my amigo here replies again, I won't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle_2 View Post

I love how 3D haters keep saying Hollywood is forcing us to see 3D. Forcing? Really? Nobody is forcing anybody to see 3D. Some films (a small minority) are getting released in 3D to give people a choice to see it in 3D. Nobody is being forced into seeing anything in 3D. People really hate that some people are actually enjoying 3D films. I've been watching 3D IMAX documentaries long before Real-D brought Hollywood 3D films back into the spotlight. Nobody forced me into it.

Nobody forced you, but timing and availability effectively "force" or "shunt" others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle_2 View Post

I saw the Oz film a few weeks ago. It wasn't that great. I'll never watch another film again. Given the option I'll always just read the book.

I had a steak the other night and it wasn't very good. I'll never eat another steak. Given the option I'll always eat chicken instead.

See how that works? A few bad experiences doesn't mean anything. People are far too unforgiving these days - 1 bad experience and they turn away and that's that, end of story....

People are too unforgiving. Isn't that exactly the point? Wishing it weren't so doesn't change that it is.
Quote:
I'm sure the first films with sound sucked, too.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0018037/?ref_=sr_1

Great? No. Sucked? No.
post #1253 of 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by degobah77 View Post

It's definitely a nice option to have. But 3D Blurays are overly expensive.

really

I guess I see them for typically $2-5 more than their 2D only blu ray counterpart

While that is more expensive..
I cant imagine anyone that would buy one of these top shoot out TV's would be bothered by the price difference



Warren
post #1254 of 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by repete66211 View Post

OK, so the questions of black levels, brightness, ABL, input lag, color accuracy, filters etc. have been addressed. One factor I haven't seen discussed* is image retention. I realize it's hard to address this since the ZT60 hasn't been released yet but does anyone have anything to offer on how the F8500 and VT60 compare when it comes to IR? I have a 5 year old Samsung that has limited, temporary IR but as I recall Samsung and Panasonic have had mixed results in the last few years with regards to image retention.

*I've only made it to page 33.

I think CNET has a Panny vs Samsung review where they test both for burn in( or lack of)

This was for 2012 models...but there should be relevance to newer models as well



Warren
post #1255 of 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by endlessender View Post

Uhm, could it be that it wasn't available and they hadn't experienced it yet? rolleyes.gif

3D films have existed in some form since 1915. 3D films were prominently featured in the 1950s in American cinema...

Oops... cool.gif

Let me put it this way, I'll show an interest in 3D when glasses-free is the norm and near flawless. I'm not holding my breath.
post #1256 of 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by turnne1 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by degobah77 View Post

It's definitely a nice option to have. But 3D Blurays are overly expensive.

really

I guess I see them for typically $2-5 more than their 2D only blu ray counterpart

While that is more expensive..
I cant imagine anyone that would buy one of these top shoot out TV's would be bothered by the price difference



Warren

you can't even buy the 3d disc by itself these days. They force you to buy the 2D disc along with the 3D disc. Funny enough If I resold those two discs seperately, I think there'd be more demand for the 3d disc.

And despite the 3d debate - 3d is here to stay, so we might as well get some comparisons on TV's in the shootout. Even CNET comments on it.

I want my next TV to have a 3d mode that doesn't make black's light up the whole room better than my lamps.
post #1257 of 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by thisrandomguy View Post

I've read the entire thing, read pro and amateur reviews on many other sites, seen them in person, and am still no closer to deciding which TV to get :/

dont leave what is going to be a 99% subjective decision to anything but your own eyes

I am amazed at these threads that are hundreds of posts long with TV's that are so close in performance that its really just about splitting hairs

...and then people wonder why the thread goes off topic so much...rolleyes.gif

5 posts of information and 500 more hair splitting ones..LOL



Warren
post #1258 of 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post

you can't even buy the 3d disc by itself these days. They force you to buy the 2D disc along with the 3D disc. Funny enough If I resold those two discs seperately, I think there'd be more demand for the 3d disc.

And despite the 3d debate - 3d is here to stay, so we might as well get some comparisons on TV's in the shootout. Even CNET comments on it.

I want my next TV to have a 3d mode that doesn't make black's light up the whole room better than my lamps.

well...probably a smart move as most people that have multiple TVs , in their home,dont have 3D capability in all of them

To my knowledge not all discs play in both 2D and 3D

in regard to 3D..its fine with me and even enjoyable..I watch it maybe 5 % of the time

While that alone ( along with smart features) would never sell me a TV...those that buy high end TV's expect a nice feature set

Just because I watch it 5% of the time doesn't mean that the next guy doesn't watch it 25% of the time and use all the camera/voice/etc features...that I personally dont find important


Warren
Edited by turnne1 - 5/16/13 at 2:41pm
post #1259 of 1489
turnne1 - you're absolutely right about it being a minority. I watch my tv probably about 5% in the daytime too and I think its fine that we added the day mode comparison for the minority that watches a bit more than that by day. I'd like the 3d comparison as well even though I watch it only about 5% as well. We can always weight those categories more appropriately. I'd guess the input lag category would be a much higher percentage for the gamers out there.

btw, about not all discs playing in 2d and 3d, I'd bet that I'm not alone when I say that I'd pay half the price for just a 3d only disc - a lot of the movies made for 3d done well I only want to watch in 3d anyway - wouldn't want to lose all that creative genius put in by the director.
post #1260 of 1489
From what I remember from the shootout on the first night. The Panasonics were better with 3D viewing and the pros preferred them to the F8500.

far as IR,all were said to be very good against it but again the Panasonics were considered better by the pros. Really none of them thought it was a problem on any of the models.

lag is very serious and the main reason I chose the VT60. It affects your play this way: you turn your player to aim up a shot and because of the input lag you over compensate, passing the intended target because your display is showing you the past. It is a major deal to any gamer who cares about how they play. Lag well certainly affect your gameplay, just how much depends on you getting used to it. The ST and F8500 game lag is far too bad for my tastes. I do game a lot online and through the years have learned how important input lag is to me.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Plasma Flat Panel Displays
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Plasma Flat Panel Displays › Which display wins the shootout? Let's have some fun. Make your predictions here.