or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Vizio drops 3d for all 2014 sets
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vizio drops 3d for all 2014 sets - Page 3

post #61 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Sure, but glasses aren't an uncomfortable issue with passive; if only the public knew this.

Public knows. Anyone who ever went to see a 3D movie at a theater would know.
Quote:
Then we added 3D, and you hate it, because ..... it's a "gimmick" and isn't closer to how we experience things in real life?

Explain this one again please.

Well, because at least for me, 3D (on TV) actually takes things AWAY from how I experience them in real life. In real life, I use the difference between what is seen by my right and left eyes to determine how far something is. Then, a combination of distance and perceived size tells my brain how big something is. Without this stereoscopic effect, I have to rely on other things (perspective, relative scale, shading etc) to gauge object depth and size. I.e if I see a group of humans in a hall with columns 20x their height, my brain says: this place is HUGE! But when I see that same scene on a 3D TV, my stereoscopic vision tells me those columns are about 3 feet tall, and those humans are LEGO-sized. When I am watching a 3D movie at an IMAX (over 1000" screen), things look about right. But watching same on 3D TV, I can't shake the feeling that I am watching a puppet show in a box. The effect is extremely negative,.so thanks, but no thanks.
post #62 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by scorrpio View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Sure, but glasses aren't an uncomfortable issue with passive; if only the public knew this.

Public knows. Anyone who ever went to see a 3D movie at a theater would know.

 

We're talking about TVs here.  And no, they don't.  They believe the glasses are heavy and clunky and never heard of passive.  At least, not the "average folks" I have over my house.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by scorrpio View Post


Quote:

Then we added 3D, and you hate it, because ..... it's a "gimmick" and isn't closer to how we experience things in real life?

Explain this one again please.


Well, because at least for me, 3D (on TV) actually takes things AWAY from how I experience them in real life. In real life, I use the difference between what is seen by my right and left eyes to determine how far something is. Then, a combination of distance and perceived size tells my brain how big something is.

 

Stop right there.  What you're talking about is how 3D in TVs works.  You're just not afforded focus cues.  (Plus a number of other ancillary cues related to you turning and moving your head subtly).

 

 

Quote:
 Without this stereoscopic effect, I have to rely on other things (perspective, relative scale, shading etc) to gauge object depth and size. I.e if I see a group of humans in a hall with columns 20x their height, my brain says: this place is HUGE! But when I see that same scene on a 3D TV, my stereoscopic vision tells me those columns are about 3 feet tall, and those humans are LEGO-sized.

 

^^^all that is the same with 2D, only worse.  MUCH worse in fact.

 

Further, all those things happen IN REAL LIFE TOO!  Have you ever heard of those contorted rooms designed to make the person look as if they grow in size as they approach the opposing corner?


Edited by tgm1024 - 1/9/14 at 10:22am
post #63 of 101
Explain in what way is it worse? So far all I hear from you is dogma. I gave a specific explanation WHY I see in-home 3D as presently implemented as a move in the opposite direction. All the other steps you listed (color, sound, resolution) heighten the immersion, a sense of being there. TV-sized 3D breaks the immersion. No matter how much you try to imagine yourself in the garden, the experience is that of Alice looking in through a tiny door with no 'drink me' bottle handy.

When watching movies on my TV, I enjoy them a whole lot more when my binocular vision doesn't keep nagging at me how small everything is. Suspension of disbelief is much easier to achieve. In fact, after I watched a few movie scenes on my friend's 65" 3D TV, I firmly decided that this kind of 3D has no place in my house - active, passive, or glasses-free. My friend agrees with me. He stuffed the glasses into a drawer shortly after getting the TV, and haven't used them since.

I sure enjoy 3D at an IMAX, but about the only 3D I consider truly viable in a small-scale environment is either some sort of VR head-mounted display, or direct optic nerve feed.
post #64 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by scorrpio View Post

Explain in what way is it worse? So far all I hear from you is dogma. I gave a specific explanation WHY I see in-home 3D as presently implemented as a move in the opposite direction. All the other steps you listed (color, sound, resolution) heighten the immersion, a sense of being there. TV-sized 3D breaks the immersion. No matter how much you try to imagine yourself in the garden, the experience is that of Alice looking in through a tiny door with no 'drink me' bottle handy.

 

I've carefully laid out how and why it is that things have progressed the way they are.  Be careful with labeling other's explanations as dogma.

 

It's worse, because you were talking about judging (as one example), the height and size of objects.  You have far less information with 2D in that regard.  In fact, there used to be a very useful film effect of having smaller objects in the foreground to give them enormous size.

 

2D just does not give you enough information.  What information do you suppose is there in 2D that the resulting 3D lacks???  Here, look at how this TV just doesn't seem like a 77" screen.  It even fooled a recent poster.  The only sense you got at all that it might be that large was when you look carefully and see how the presenter's hand dramatically shrinks in size.

 

Until he moves his hand toward you, you can't tell non-heuristically that his hand isn't merely much smaller.  In 3D however, the perspective will give you that Z information which weighs against the X,Y size in screen space to give you added information.  It's a dramatically important cue that you've simply discarded as unimportant or for some reason detrimental.

 

 

post #65 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

all that is the same with 2D, only worse.  MUCH worse in fact.
I still disagree. With a 2D image, I'm looking at just that - an image. I can relax and focus on the content.
With 3D, my brain goes "no, this isn't right" so the 3D becomes a distraction when trying to watch a film.

When I'm watching 2D, I get a sense of scale from the image that's being presented to me.
When I'm watching 3D, well, I think scorrpio's example summed it up quite nicely. Everything looks tiny - and it doesn't seem to be the display size which is causing it.
post #66 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

2D just does not give you enough information.  What information do you suppose is there in 2D that the resulting 3D lacks??? 

PRECISELY!
3D gives me extra information which I absolutely, totally and completely DO NOT WANT!!!! It gives me information that degrades my experience. Would you get more enjoyment from the Two Towers if it showed you exactly how many times did Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas stop to take a s*** while chasing those orcs?

2D picture leaves my mind free to see a world as big as I want it to be. 3D doesn't.

Comprende?
post #67 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by scorrpio View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

2D just does not give you enough information.  What information do you suppose is there in 2D that the resulting 3D lacks??? 

PRECISELY!
3D gives me extra information which I absolutely, totally and completely DO NOT WANT!!!! It gives me information that degrades my experience. Would you get more enjoyment from the Two Towers if it showed you exactly how many times did Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas stop to take a s*** while chasing those orcs?

2D picture leaves my mind free to see a world as big as I want it to be. 3D doesn't.

Comprende?

 

Nope.  I can view a model and see it as if it were huge.  Just as I can view a 2D picture, and view it as huge.  You can do both as well.

 

Apparently for some reason, you both equate depth information with an impression of overall size, and I just don't see that at all.  Nor, actually, have I ever heard of such a thing outside of this thread.  And I'm certainly no new-comer to stereopsis theory.

 

I don't see Avatar and go "oh no, they're just little foot high people walking around in a dinky jungle."

post #68 of 101

I'm trying to imagine the extreme cases here to see the point....to take your side for a moment to see if I understand this.

 

What would it be like to view in perfect science fiction-esque 3D, a scene re-enacted in front of me on my desk using 6 inch high people.  Would I see 6" fake people, or be pulled into the scene?  Perhaps it'd be off-putting the first go-around, but wouldn't you adapt quickly?

 

The only thing I can equate this too is when I've watched something on my laptop.  I saw an entire episode of Homeland on the laptop, and later on couldn't remember which one I saw on the dinky screen, and which one I saw on my 60" TV at home.

 

I saw a documentary on my cell phone via youtube.  I couldn't remember later if that was the one I saw on the cell phone, or the one I saw on my laptop.  I was pulled into the story in both cases.

post #69 of 101

Further taking your side for a sec....

 

If I watch a play from far away, I do get immersed into the story but perhaps this is because perspective has been flattened naturally from the distance (this does happen), so evolutionarily my brain is able to see it as large as needed.

 

If see a 3D representation on TV such that the characters are angularly as optically big, I'll see them using perspective that puts them too close as dinky people in front of me?

 

Have I identified the disconnect between our positions properly?  Because immersion is still 100% possible for me in both cases.

post #70 of 101
I have experienced what you describe when using an iPad for example, but it doesn't work like that for me with 3D.
With 3D - and it will likely be the same problem with holographic displays, it just looks like 6" tall people. (to use your example)

2D conveys a sense of scale with its image. Your mind "fills in the gaps".
3D tells my brain it's only 6" tall.

Edit: You may be right.
post #71 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Some of us tried to explain this months ago... But the proponents couldn't accept reality.

3-D is basically dead as a home format. It's not streamable on most major streaming services, is going to leave Netflix as quietly and quickly as it arrived, is not available from the most important video-rental service in the country, and is essentially a niche format that is popular with a really small set of customers. Fortunately, those people are likely to be able to continue to enjoy it for at least a while....

Is this true? I'm not arguing asking honestly. I think it valuable to review the formats.

Here are the most popular Streaming services I'm aware of:

Netflix - Some feature films, many documentaries
Cable VOD - Several cable providers (I have Comcast Xfinity) provide 3D movie rental mostly new release feature films
HBO/Starz - 3D movie rental mostly new release feature films
VUDU - Rent or buy new release 3D feature films and documentaries
YouTube - Can stream 3D
Hulu - No 3D
Amazon Prime - No 3D
Redbox Instant - No 3D
PSN - Rent and buy 3D new release feature films
Xbox live - ?
Apple Tv- No 3D
3DGO - limited devices compatible, but has 3D

I don't know if I would say most streaming services do not support 3D. Am I missing any big ones?
post #72 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I've carefully laid out how and why it is that things have progressed the way they are.  Be careful with labeling other's explanations as dogma.

It's worse, because you were talking about judging (as one example), the height and size of objects.  You have far less information with 2D in that regard.  In fact, there used to be a very useful film effect of having smaller objects in the foreground to give them enormous size.

2D just does not give you enough information.  What information do you suppose is there in 2D that the resulting 3D lacks???  Here, look at how this TV just doesn't seem like a 77" screen.  It even fooled a recent poster.  The only sense you got at all that it might be that large was when you look carefully and see how the presenter's hand dramatically shrinks in size.

Until he moves his hand toward you, you can't tell non-heuristically that his hand isn't merely much smaller.  In 3D however, the perspective will give you that Z information which weighs against the X,Y size in screen space to give you added information.  It's a dramatically important cue that you've simply discarded as unimportant or for some reason detrimental.

 

Haha. I remember doing that as a kid. You'd have your friend hold his hand in front of the video camera, and you go 100' behind him and the camera man would tilt the camera until it looked like the kid far away was a little man dancing in the other kids hand. Or when you pretend to hold up a boulder on a family trip using perspective.

Shot in proper 3D the hand would be at the screen and the kid would be well behind the screen.

When in New Zealand I did a LOTR tour (don't judge) I think they said Peter Jackson used forced perspective as a tool - like to make the ring of power appear small or large etc. I wonder if you have to consider other tools when using 3D - hence the difficulty of 2D-3D conversion?
post #73 of 101

Seems like a good time to bring up a great illusion that was just sent to me.

 

You're gonna love this.  Watch to the end.

 


Edited by tgm1024 - 1/9/14 at 6:17pm
post #74 of 101
^Nightmares tonight.

PS. Fix your sig;


biggrin.gif
post #75 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvh4 View Post

Is this true? I'm not arguing asking honestly. I think it valuable to review the formats.

Here are the most popular Streaming services I'm aware of:

Netflix - Some feature films, many documentaries
Cable VOD - Several cable providers (I have Comcast Xfinity) provide 3D movie rental mostly new release feature films
HBO/Starz - 3D movie rental mostly new release feature films
VUDU - Rent or buy new release 3D feature films and documentaries
YouTube - Can stream 3D
Hulu - No 3D
Amazon Prime - No 3D
Redbox Instant - No 3D
PSN - Rent and buy 3D new release feature films
Xbox live - ?
Apple Tv- No 3D
3DGO - limited devices compatible, but has 3D

I don't know if I would say most streaming services do not support 3D. Am I missing any big ones?

So when I meant they'd be able to enjoy it, I meant via buying 3-D BluRay to be honest...

Netflix is probably going to skip renewing most of their 3D films (reading between the lines, don't quote me)...
YouTube/Hulu/Amazon are unlikely to add any 3D

I suspect the cable-based offerings will stick around for awhile since nothing is competing for the bandwidth -- yet.
And when you add that to BluRay offerings, I'd say 3D fans should be able to enjoy it in the home for a while, yes.
post #76 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

^Nightmares tonight.

PS. Fix your sig;

 

LOL!!   Dammit.

post #77 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

So when I meant they'd be able to enjoy it, I meant via buying 3-D BluRay to be honest...

Netflix is probably going to skip renewing most of their 3D films (reading between the lines, don't quote me)...
YouTube/Hulu/Amazon are unlikely to add any 3D

I suspect the cable-based offerings will stick around for awhile since nothing is competing for the bandwidth -- yet.
And when you add that to BluRay offerings, I'd say 3D fans should be able to enjoy it in the home for a while, yes.

Fair enough. The Netflix thing doesn't concern me much. Netflix streaming of 2D outside of TV shows is a joke. Of the 100ish movie titles in my queue, 12 are available instantly most are not new releases. That's less than 12%. That means 88% of my movie watching already has to come from another source. I'm sure everyone's % depends on taste, but what's best case? 50%? 3D and UHD will just exacerbate this issue as their selection will be more scarce.

4K Netflix is a joke to me until I can actually stream their service at their currently advertised resolutions during prime time viewing and provide 4k content people want to see. They cannot always do that for me with my 50 mps down 10 mps up internet at home. What will even be available in 4k? Not tv shows, those are lucky to be 1080P. So at best 12% of the movies I want to see. I don't think Netflix represents the future of movie distribution. They should spend their money on the servers ability to deliver the content, and the selection of titles available to stream. I hardly thing Netlix has proven through their history to understand the marketplace and make intelligent business decisions. I know you weren't arguing for Netflix, but I'm glad I got that off my chest smile.gif Anyway . . .

Back on topic, I don't like the Vizio news as a fan of 3D. I would find the Vizio news more upsetting if they were not still pursuing glasses-free 3D. It may still be an indictment on the 3D market, but at least they still have a foot in 3D. I always pictured the future of 3D to be projectors, as small screens and 3D don't mix. I think the home theater market is pretty specialized, as is many top of the line technologies. (How many people outside this community own $3k receivers?) I think they only way 3D makes it into the living room is glasses free 3D that makes 3D no more effort than 2D. Face it, a lot of us here are movie lovers, or music lovers. The vast majority of Americans watch Food network and jersey shore as 80% of their viewing. So the majority of content people watch isnt 3D, so the equipment they view this on won't have 3D as a priority. 3D is for movies.

Right now people don't know how good 3D at home can be. Best buy doesn't have a 100" screen with crosstalk free bright 3D on display. The 3D I watch at home is better than any 3D theater, and I have only $5K into my system. My system is active and I am surprised how many people here bash active. I have crosstalk free 3D at adequate brightness in a light controlled environment. My estar glasses are close in comfort and size to passive glasses, if not 15% heavier. Plus they charge from the usb on my PS3 just like any ps3 controller. I have a smaller screen, so maybe that's why.
Edited by jvh4 - 1/10/14 at 8:50am
post #78 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvh4 View Post

Netflix streaming of 2D outside of TV shows is a joke. Of the 100ish movie titles in my queue, 12 are available instantly most are not new releases. That's less than 12%. That means 88% of my movie watching already has to come from another source. I'm sure everyone's % depends on taste, but what's best case? 50%? 3D and UHD will just exacerbate this issue as their selection will be more scarce.


I'm sorry to hear about your problems with Netflix. I rent 2 to 3 new releases from Netflix every week and rarely have any issues. I also stream a lot of indie films and they look great in Super HD. However, I doubt 4k will be available for quite some time to come unless they can resolve the Open Connect and bandwidth issues with the top ISP's.


Ian
post #79 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by mailiang View Post

I'm sorry to hear about your problems with Netflix. I rent 2 to 3 new releases from Netflix every week and rarely have any issues. I also stream a lot of indie films and they look great in Super HD. However, I doubt 4k will be available for quite some time to come unless they can resolve the Open Connect and bandwidth issues with the top ISP's.


Ian

Just to clarify, I get good results from Netflix when I get Bluray by mail and when streaming TV shows. Just not data heavy movies and 3D during prime time. I completely agree with you regarding their future support for 4K, but they are streaming 4k (documentaries and House of Cards S2) to certain devices now apparently.
post #80 of 101
Netflix will be streaming 4K at ~15 megabits/second direct to 4K compatible 2013/4 sets with HEVC decoders (and any upgraded 2013 sets and any future set-top boxes).

House of Cards S2, Breaking Bad, some nature docs are the first content. Most Netflix originals will be in 4K soon, though "Orange is the New Black" S2 will not be from what I've been told.
post #81 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvh4 View Post

Just to clarify, I get good results from Netflix when I get Bluray by mail and when streaming TV shows. Just not data heavy movies and 3D during prime time. I completely agree with you regarding their future support for 4K, but they are streaming 4k (documentaries and House of Cards S2) to certain devices now apparently.

There has been no indication that Netflix is ready to provide 4K support at this time. (I've confirmed this with a Netflix CSR). Although Hasting claims it will be available with certain devices in a few months, I have my doubts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Netflix will be streaming 4K at ~15 megabits/second direct to 4K compatible 2013/4 sets with HEVC decoders (and any upgraded 2013 sets and any future set-top boxes).

House of Cards S2, Breaking Bad, some nature docs are the first content. Most Netflix originals will be in 4K soon, though "Orange is the New Black" S2 will not be from what I've been told.


When it does become available, I can only believe that it will be even more problematic then their Super HD codecs, for those who's ISP's do not have Open Connect.


Ian
post #82 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by mailiang View Post

There has been no indication that Netflix is ready to provide 4K support at this time. (I've confirmed this with a Netflix CSR). Although Hasting claims it will be available with certain devices in a few months, I have my doubts.
When it does become available, I can only believe that it will be even more problematic then their Super HD codecs, for those who's ISP's do not have Open Connect.


Ian

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/netflix-app-stream-4k-new-tvs-immediately-2D11897506

In summary, for select TVs, users can stream 4K immediately. Now the TVs that they refer to may not be available to the public immediately, but will be very soon, if this article is to be believed.
post #83 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvh4 View Post

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/netflix-app-stream-4k-new-tvs-immediately-2D11897506

In summary, for select TVs, users can stream 4K immediately. Now the TVs that they refer to may not be available to the public immediately, but will be very soon, if this article is to be believed.


I read that too. Welcome to the world of CES. Like I said, I have my doubts. I'll believe it when I see it.


Ian wink.gif
post #84 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by mailiang View Post

There has been no indication that Netflix is ready to provide 4K support at this time. (I've confirmed this with a Netflix CSR).

I disagree.

I've been in the room with the Netflix people. (The same folks who demoed me the new UI a few months ago).

It's absolutely ready. In fact, it works right now on a real Sony TV using a real version of Netflix.

It's quite possible the CSRs have not been informed of the state of things given this was just announced days ago, but the intention is for you to be able to watch House of Cards in 4K if you have compatible equipment.

And House of Cards premieres very soon. (Feb. 14 to be precise).
post #85 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I disagree.

I've been in the room with the Netflix people. (The same folks who demoed me the new UI a few months ago).

It's absolutely ready. In fact, it works right now on a real Sony TV using a real version of Netflix.

It's quite possible the CSRs have not been informed of the state of things given this was just announced days ago, but the intention is for you to be able to watch House of Cards in 4K if you have compatible equipment.

And House of Cards premieres very soon. (Feb. 14 to be precise)
.


Good luck with that. biggrin.gif Doesn't mean you will be able to get it through your local ISP's CDN. I wouldn't be surprised if it also becomes problematic for some Open Connect users. That's a lot more bandwidth they're asking for. You should come join us on the Netflix quality streaming thread. wink.gif


Ian
Edited by mailiang - 1/10/14 at 10:06pm
post #86 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by mailiang View Post

Good luck with that. biggrin.gif Doesn't mean you will be able to get it through your local ISP's CDN. I wouldn't be surprised if it also becomes problematic for some Open Connect users. That's a lot more bandwidth they're asking for. You should come join us on the Netflix quality streaming thread. wink.gif

I'd join you there if I cared more.

I don't have a 4K TV and won't be getting one this year.

I'll watch House of Cards even though I think it's mediocre.

I cover Netflix on my blog, but this is kind of arcane for my readership.
post #87 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I'd join you there if I cared more.

I don't have a 4K TV and won't be getting one this year.

I'll watch House of Cards even though I think it's mediocre.

I cover Netflix on my blog, but this is kind of arcane for my readership.


I have always respected your input, but since this subject is more appropriate on the Netflix streaming thread, and it's obviously not your cup of tea, I will defer from bringing it up again.


Ian wink.gif
post #88 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by mailiang View Post

I have always respected your input, but since this subject is more appropriate on the Netflix streaming thread, and it's obviously not your cup of tea, I will defer from bringing it up again.

I respect your input, too. I'm just telling you that you're going to be able to watch Netflix in 4K very soon assuming (a) you have the right TV and (b) you can pull a sustained 15 megabits.

You clearly don't believe that; I clearly do. I think it's relevant in this 4K discussion. And I completely agree with you we've said all there is to say on the topic.
post #89 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I respect your input, too. I'm just telling you that you're going to be able to watch Netflix in 4K very soon assuming (a) you have the right TV and (b) you can pull a sustained 15 megabits.

You clearly don't believe that; I clearly do. I think it's relevant in this 4K discussion. And I completely agree with you we've said all there is to say on the topic.


As always, you make a good argument. Surprisingly, Netflix is ready to dish out 4k streaming, and I will concede to that fact. However, my skepticism has been about being able to get a sustained amount of bandwidth to support it. I know I said I wasn't going to bring this up again tongue.gif but since you believe it is still relevant, I've decided to share this last tidbit:


From The Verge:
Quote:
Bandwidth, however, remains a big question. 4K streams will require around 15 Mbps for the highest quality, something that’s still relatively rare for many consumers*. Hunt believes that in the short term, the customers choosing to jump on the 4K bandwagon will likely have the kinds of robust connections that can mitigate any potential issues, but with Vizio putting such a focus on low-cost 4K, consumers with slower connections may find themselves more frustrated than delighted.

*Being that there are very few ISP's that have partnered with Open Connect, 4k streaming will be an issue for many of those who even have the best plans.


You can read the full article here:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/10/5291068/how-netflix-won-ces-4k-streaming?utm_source=howtogeek&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter


Regards,
Ian
Edited by mailiang - 1/12/14 at 2:49pm
post #90 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by mailiang View Post

As always, you make a good argument. Surprisingly, Netflix is ready to dish out 4k streaming, and I will concede to that fact. However, my skepticism has been about being able to get a sustained amount of bandwidth to support it. I know I said I wasn't going to bring this up again tongue.gif but since you believe it is still relevant, I've decided share this last tidbit:


From The Verge:
*Being that there are very few ISP's that have partnered with Open Connect, 4k streaming will be an issue for many of those who even have the best plans.


You can read the full article here:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/10/5291068/how-netflix-won-ces-4k-streaming?utm_source=howtogeek&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter


Regards,
Ian

This is a huge concern. Netflix claims you need 12 mps for 3D streaming and that still doesn't work during prime time. Unless something changes quickly 4k will have this same issue but worse.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Vizio drops 3d for all 2014 sets