Thoughts the new 8K oled from lg? - Page 2 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 27Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 63 Old 08-31-2018, 04:49 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CHASLS2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Tampa FL area
Posts: 3,137
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1095 Post(s)
Liked: 491
No good getting 8k ray when there is nothing to look at in 4k let alone 8k.

Sony 65" A1E Pioneer Elite DV-59 AVI
OPPO203,103&83 Sony BD player
Pioneer Elite SC61 AVR Acurus 200x 3
Paradigm 60V5'S 490 CC V5
B&W 685 S2's 2 SVS subs
CHASLS2 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 63 Old 09-02-2018, 05:52 PM
boe
AVS Forum Special Member
 
boe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,284
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1207 Post(s)
Liked: 545
I'd really like a big-ass TV. 2 things that would concern me - will it have HDMI 2.1 and will it be at least 20% brighter than current OLEDs. If it was $4K I wouldn't be that concerned but I'm guessing this will be something I'll be keeping for many many years and I'm not buying unless it is ready.

If they could up the brightness enough at this size with this resolution - 3D could actually make a comeback if they sold it again.

Last edited by boe; 09-02-2018 at 08:53 PM.
boe is offline  
post #33 of 63 Old 09-04-2018, 04:30 PM
Member
 
Jess Sayin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Hawai'i
Posts: 170
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by boe View Post

If they could up the brightness enough at this size with this resolution - 3D could actually make a comeback if they sold it again.
Yes I agree. There were pro- and con- 3D comments so far but the reality is, OLED 4K passive 3D was the first really faultless implementation of 3D, and then LG discontinued it just after they perfected it.

Not every pair of eyes are able to appreciate 3D but that doesn't mean it should be abandoned. A doubling in resolution is not half as valuable to me as losing the 3D option I have and am happy with in my aging LG. 65EF9500 4K OLED -- which I'm pampering to make last until either it dies of old age or a 3D-capable upgrade is finally available.

Those who don't need 3D need not use it, but for those who do, it is essential. Don't watch 3D if you don't like it. From Avatar 3D to Kung Fu Panda 3D to The Hobbit trilogy and David Attenborough's The 3D Collection all produced in exquisite in 3D: making displays incapable of displaying these artworks is like making a display incapable of displaying early Kurosawa, Ford, Chaplin or Hitchcock classics because some people don't like black and white.

EDIT: Nobody called me on my error, but I've edited to correct the above to correctly cite Attenborough's 3D collection, a very nice set that I meant when I incorrectly cited Planet Earth 2, which I am looking forward to get in UHD.

Last edited by Jess Sayin; 09-10-2018 at 08:33 PM.
Jess Sayin is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 63 Old 09-04-2018, 04:38 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BuGsArEtAsTy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AVS Forum
Posts: 8,289
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 711 Post(s)
Liked: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jess Sayin View Post
Yes I agree. There were pro- and con- 3D comments so far but the reality is, OLED 4K passive 3D was the first really faultless implementation of 3D, and then LG discontinued it just after they perfected it.

Not every pair of eyes are able to appreciate 3D but that doesn't mean it should be abandoned. A doubling in resolution is not half as valuable to me as losing the 3D option I have and am happy with in my aging LG. 65EF9500 4K OLED -- which I'm pampering to make last until either it dies of old age or a 3D-capable upgrade is finally available.

Those who don't need 3D need not use it, but for those who do, it is essential. Don't watch 3D if you don't like it. From Avatar 3D to Kung Fu Panda 3D to The Hobbit trilogy and Planet Earth 2 all produced in exquisite in 3D: making displays incapable of displaying these artworks is like making a display incapable of displaying early Kurosawa, Ford, Chaplin or Hitchcock classics because some people don't like black and white.
3D was abandoned because economically it was not viable.
BuGsArEtAsTy is offline  
post #35 of 63 Old 09-04-2018, 04:56 PM
Member
 
Jess Sayin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Hawai'i
Posts: 170
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuGsArEtAsTy View Post
3D was abandoned because economically it was not viable.
And 8K is?

Not likely the reason. And you miss the point of my B&W analogy - B&W content is still sold, though it is clearly a niche market who buy classic movies, arguably more niche than those who view 3D. Only the display makers have completely abandoned 3D. In UK you can easily find new 3D releases that are unavailable or overpriced in the US (just watched Ready Player One in 3D and awaiting delivery of the latest Avengers Blu Ray from Amazon.co.uk), and I still go to 3D showings at the local theater. The cost is essentially software plus passive glasses for OLED. Clearly there is a market to keep it going at least in region 2 world.
Jess Sayin is offline  
post #36 of 63 Old 09-04-2018, 05:05 PM
Member
 
Jess Sayin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Hawai'i
Posts: 170
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 42
I don't mean to turn this into a 3D chat: points both pro/con made.

I just replied to agree with the earlier post that stated upgrades to 8K may offer opportunity to improve and revive 3D. That was the case for early 4K OLED models by comparison.

I am undecided on the other benefits for home-theater sized displays in 8K vs existing 4K. I'm reading with interest to learn more.
Jess Sayin is offline  
post #37 of 63 Old 09-04-2018, 05:12 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BuGsArEtAsTy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AVS Forum
Posts: 8,289
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 711 Post(s)
Liked: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jess Sayin View Post
And 8K is?
Yeah probably, because it's the manufacturers' way to keep price up, and the masses may buy into it.

People didn't buy into 3D, because it was a pain. It not only took money to get into 3D, it actually took effort, and for most people that effort was more a negative than the 3D was a positive. And for others, 3D was actually a negative, so why bother?

It took the industry long enough before they finally stopped putting money into this money pit, but in the end they had to cut their losses and pulled out.

Quote:
Not likely the reason.
Money is most definitely the reason 3D died.

Quote:
And you miss the point of my B&W analogy - B&W content is still sold, though it is clearly a niche market who buy classic movies, arguably more niche than those who view 3D. Only the display makers have completely abandoned 3D. In UK you can easily find new 3D releases that are unavailable or overpriced in the US (just watched Ready Player One in 3D and awaiting delivery of the latest Avengers Blu Ray from Amazon.co.uk), and I still go to 3D showings at the local theater. The cost is essentially software plus passive glasses for OLED. Clearly there is a market to keep it going at least in region 2 world.
No, I just don't think your analogy makes any sense. B&W requires absolute no additional hardware or software to support it. It functions as a subset of existing tech. Any colour TV can display B&W. The discs are exactly the same, and if anything are easier to master. Any Blu-ray player can display B&W. Etc.

3D is a whole different kettle of fish. You need special TVs, with special discs, special mastering, special players, extra glasses, etc. and of course those irritating special glasses. And to maintain that cost a not-insignificant amount of money. The companies all realized it was not worth the money since people were not buying into it, and that was the end of it.
lsorensen likes this.

Last edited by BuGsArEtAsTy; 09-04-2018 at 05:16 PM.
BuGsArEtAsTy is offline  
post #38 of 63 Old 09-04-2018, 05:19 PM
boe
AVS Forum Special Member
 
boe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,284
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1207 Post(s)
Liked: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuGsArEtAsTy View Post
3D was abandoned because economically it was not viable.
I'm thinking it was cheap if they didn't include glasses. I think lack of interest made it go away. But if people had much bigger 77" or 85" screens, much higher resolution and if hdmi 2.1 gave them enough bandwidth for fast refreshes it might have radically changed the landscape.
boe is offline  
post #39 of 63 Old 09-04-2018, 06:28 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 4770
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuGsArEtAsTy View Post
Yeah probably, because it's the manufacturers' way to keep price up, and the masses may buy into it.

People didn't buy into 3D, because it was a pain. It not only took money to get into 3D, it actually took effort, and for most people that effort was more a negative than the 3D was a positive. And for others, 3D was actually a negative, so why bother?

It took the industry long enough before they finally stopped putting money into this money pit, but in the end they had to cut their losses and pulled out.


Money is most definitely the reason 3D died.


No, I just don't think your analogy makes any sense. B&W requires absolute no additional hardware or software to support it. It functions as a subset of existing tech. Any colour TV can display B&W. The discs are exactly the same, and if anything are easier to master. Any Blu-ray player can display B&W. Etc.

3D is a whole different kettle of fish. You need special TVs, with special discs, special mastering, special players, extra glasses, etc. and of course those irritating special glasses. And to maintain that cost a not-insignificant amount of money. The companies all realized it was not worth the money since people were not buying into it, and that was the end of it.
This is almost correct.

The reality is that the most viable form of 3D (passive) sacrificed 50% of screen brighness for those who don't watch 3D, while the other form of 3D that allowed a full-brightness 2D mode (active) involved clunky expensive glasses, caused headaches for many, and was just not a consumer-friendly technology.

If LG could have maintained full 2D peak brighness on their passive 3D TVs, it would still be with us today. It's not 8K that should be compared to 3D, it's HDR.

HDR is incompatible with passive 3D (because of the loss of brightness) and the way that the market has evolved, HDR is proving to be more valuable than 3D ever was...

There will be VR headsets supporting 3D but the return of large 3D flat (or curved)-screen TVs supporting 3D is very unlikely (at least until a glasses-free 3D involving no loss of brightness in 2D mode materializes)..,
fafrd is offline  
post #40 of 63 Old 09-04-2018, 07:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BuGsArEtAsTy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AVS Forum
Posts: 8,289
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 711 Post(s)
Liked: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
This is almost correct.

The reality is that the most viable form of 3D (passive) sacrificed 50% of screen brighness for those who don't watch 3D, while the other form of 3D that allowed a full-brightness 2D mode (active) involved clunky expensive glasses, caused headaches for many, and was just not a consumer-friendly technology.

If LG could have maintained full 2D peak brighness on their passive 3D TVs, it would still be with us today. It's not 8K that should be compared to 3D, it's HDR.

HDR is incompatible with passive 3D (because of the loss of brightness) and the way that the market has evolved, HDR is proving to be more valuable than 3D ever was...

There will be VR headsets supporting 3D but the return of large 3D flat (or curved)-screen TVs supporting 3D is very unlikely (at least until a glasses-free 3D involving no loss of brightness in 2D mode materializes)..,
Yeah, that too. Competing technologies and both with serious drawbacks. Actually, to be honest I never delved that deeply into the tech side of this because it just never interested me in the first place, but that's pretty much par for the course for the general public. It seemed just about nobody except for a few enthusiasts would put up with all the downsides of the technologies to bring this into their homes.

Anyhoo, at this point, after a few weeks with OLEDs, I want these few things:

1. Bigger screens and lower prices.
2. A bit brighter screens, but that would just be a bonus. However, it would be nice not to need ABL.
3. Better motion handling.
4. Less risk of burn-in.
5. HDMI 2.1 and eARC with perfect lip sync.

So, 8K doesn't even make the top 5 of my list.
boe and shyguy3763 like this.
BuGsArEtAsTy is offline  
post #41 of 63 Old 09-04-2018, 08:53 PM
boe
AVS Forum Special Member
 
boe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,284
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1207 Post(s)
Liked: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuGsArEtAsTy View Post
Anyhoo, at this point, after a few weeks with OLEDs, I want these few things:

1. Bigger screens and lower prices.
2. A bit brighter screens, but that would just be a bonus. However, it would be nice not to need ABL.
3. Better motion handling.
4. Less risk of burn-in.
5. HDMI 2.1 and eARC with perfect lip sync.

So, 8K doesn't even make the top 5 of my list.
A good list - I wish that was the priority list for LG. (maybe it is).
boe is offline  
post #42 of 63 Old 09-05-2018, 06:38 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
lsorensen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,513
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1376 Post(s)
Liked: 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuGsArEtAsTy View Post
Yeah, that too. Competing technologies and both with serious drawbacks. Actually, to be honest I never delved that deeply into the tech side of this because it just never interested me in the first place, but that's pretty much par for the course for the general public. It seemed just about nobody except for a few enthusiasts would put up with all the downsides of the technologies to bring this into their homes.

Anyhoo, at this point, after a few weeks with OLEDs, I want these few things:

1. Bigger screens and lower prices.
2. A bit brighter screens, but that would just be a bonus. However, it would be nice not to need ABL.
3. Better motion handling.
4. Less risk of burn-in.
5. HDMI 2.1 and eARC with perfect lip sync.

So, 8K doesn't even make the top 5 of my list.

Unfortunately I suspect for LG the list comes down to what they have figured out how to do. Making smaller pixels and hence 8K they have figured out how to do. Making a panel with higher brightness that has no burn in and better motion they have not figured out so you aren't getting that. Lower prices is probably not a big priority for LG. HDMI 2.1 will come when the chips are ready, which takes time, but even that they at least know how to do.

Len Sorensen

Sony XBR55A1E, Marantz SR6012, Benq W7000, Oppo BDP-93, PSB Image T5/C5/B4/Subseries 200
lsorensen is offline  
post #43 of 63 Old 09-05-2018, 07:09 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
KidHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Derwood, Maryland
Posts: 5,326
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1799 Post(s)
Liked: 1231
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuGsArEtAsTy View Post
3D was abandoned because economically it was not viable.
It wasn't that. It didn't add much cost to the TV.

The problem was it was too complicated for average consumers. You needed HDMI 1.4 cables, a TV, blu-ray player and maybe a receiver. You had to use a 3D version of the movie. You had to get the glasses to sync with the TV. I can imagine peoples eyes glazing over when a BB teenager was trying to explain it to a TV shopper.
locomo and Dianabol5mg like this.
KidHorn is offline  
post #44 of 63 Old 09-05-2018, 07:26 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BuGsArEtAsTy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AVS Forum
Posts: 8,289
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 711 Post(s)
Liked: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by lsorensen View Post
Unfortunately I suspect for LG the list comes down to what they have figured out how to do. Making smaller pixels and hence 8K they have figured out how to do. Making a panel with higher brightness that has no burn in and better motion they have not figured out so you aren't getting that. Lower prices is probably not a big priority for LG. HDMI 2.1 will come when the chips are ready, which takes time, but even that they at least know how to do.
I agree. My wish list was just that, a wish list.

The other part is that 8K is easier to market than better improved motion handling, for example. Actually I do think Lucky Goldstar is working hard on motion handling, but it seems like Sony has still been able to keep their lead, although overall for video processing, the gap between Sony and LG is narrowing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post
It wasn't that. It didn't add much cost to the TV.

The problem was it was too complicated for average consumers. You needed HDMI 1.4 cables, a TV, blu-ray player and maybe a receiver. You had to use a 3D version of the movie. You had to get the glasses to sync with the TV. I can imagine peoples eyes glazing over when a BB teenager was trying to explain it to a TV shopper.
That's not what I mean by "economically viable". Just being more expensive doesn't preclude market viability. OLED arguably almost doubles the cost of TVs, but I do believe it is economically viable.

The difference here is people actually want OLEDs, and are willing to pay for it, despite the much higher cost.

In contrast, almost nobody wanted 3D, but it did add significant cost, not just to customers and manufacturers, but also to retailers in terms of salesperson training, demonstration floor space, etc. but yet, when that teenage BB kid talked about it customers' eyes just glazed over.

My anecdotal experience is that lots of guys would go to BB and test out 3D in the store, and some said, hey, that's kind of interesting, but then very few of them actually went as far as to buy it (except for a few diehards like some AVS members).

And the point made earlier by fafrd that 3D was a problem for 4K HDR is a good one. There are technical considerations here too.
BuGsArEtAsTy is offline  
post #45 of 63 Old 09-10-2018, 02:15 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 4770
When LG finally launches their 8K 88" WOLED in 2019, I hope they are smart enough to deliver at least a 60fps refresh rate:

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/focus.p...&id=1536570979

"First of all, Samsung said that Q900R is not certified for HDMI 2.1 at this time, mainly because the compliance test was finalized just last month. The company explained that it is seeking certification based on the HDMI1 port. The other HDMI ports will be limited to 4K video input. Still, there is a significant drawback because Samsung’s hardware is limited to 8K30 (8K at 30 frames per second). This is not a limitation of the HDMI 2.1 standard that can go far beyond but manufactures also have to make sure that their hardware can process all of this video information."

"Ironically, from a picture quality standpoint, 30fps is far too low frame rate to maintain 8K resolution in moving images. Motion resolution will simply be a lot lower than 8K – lower than 4K, too. Some industry members have assessed that for 4K video we need to go beyond 50/60fps to retain resolution during motion so 8K will require even higher frame rate – unless you only want to look at still images."
fafrd is offline  
post #46 of 63 Old 09-10-2018, 04:41 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,586
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4280 Post(s)
Liked: 3704
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuGsArEtAsTy View Post
Yeah, that too. Competing technologies and both with serious drawbacks. Actually, to be honest I never delved that deeply into the tech side of this because it just never interested me in the first place, but that's pretty much par for the course for the general public. It seemed just about nobody except for a few enthusiasts would put up with all the downsides of the technologies to bring this into their homes.
For many who didn't care for 3D, once they nabbed a UHD OLED with passive 3D support, they changed their tune. For me and active 3D on a comparatively dim plasma (Panasonic ZT60), I could take it or leave it. That changed entirely with passive 3D on my first 1080p OLED (2014), even with halved resolution per eye. 3D was forced onto the marketplace half-baked/prematurely. We're speaking in hypotheticals, but if OLED had been available in a consumer TV back in 2007/8 (whenever Avatar arrived), we might be singing a different tune about the format today (and the latest HDR/resolution fads/advances).
video_analysis is offline  
post #47 of 63 Old 09-10-2018, 05:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BuGsArEtAsTy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AVS Forum
Posts: 8,289
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 711 Post(s)
Liked: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by video_analysis View Post
For many who didn't care for 3D, once they nabbed a UHD OLED with passive 3D support, they changed their tune. For me and active 3D on a comparatively dim plasma (Panasonic ZT60), I could take it or leave it. That changed entirely with passive 3D on my first 1080p OLED (2014), even with halved resolution per eye. 3D was forced onto the marketplace half-baked/prematurely. We're speaking in hypotheticals, but if OLED had been available in a consumer TV back in 2007/8 (whenever Avatar arrived), we might be singing a different tune about the format today (and the latest HDR/resolution fads/advances).
Many is a relative term. Few liked it enough to buy it before, and while maybe a few more would like with 2016 OLED, it still wasn't anywhere near enough to sustain the industry as most still don't care for it, myself included.

BTW, we in Toronto have one of the best 3D theatres on the continent. Superbright dual laser true IMAX projectors, and the first in North America in fact. (IMAX headquarters is in the Greater Toronto Area.)

I still much, much prefer watching in 2D any day of the week. I was so much happier to be able to watch The Last Jedi in that laser IMAX theatre on the first weekend in 2D.
BuGsArEtAsTy is offline  
post #48 of 63 Old 09-10-2018, 06:12 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,586
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4280 Post(s)
Liked: 3704
Yes, many of the 2016 buyers. They are easy to ignore because the 65" OLED TVs with 3D support were still $3500 and up that year (there was a drop to under $3k for a short time). Thus, LG obtained well under 1% of the marketshare in 2016 so of course that's a drop in the bucket next to total TV sales. The zero blacks of OLED make the 3D (especially shots of space) more enveloping than most theaters. I saw Gravity in 3D at the theater and hardly remember the experience. To be blunt: Until one has seen a reference 3D title on a passive OLED, I table ho-hum dismissals as talking out of one's ass. If one has a physical condition that causes discomfort, that is another matter entirely.
Dianabol5mg likes this.

Last edited by video_analysis; 09-10-2018 at 06:16 PM.
video_analysis is offline  
post #49 of 63 Old 09-10-2018, 06:48 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 4770
Quote:
Originally Posted by video_analysis View Post
Yes, many of the 2016 buyers. They are easy to ignore because the 65" OLED TVs with 3D support were still $3500 and up that year (there was a drop to under $3k for a short time). Thus, LG obtained well under 1% of the marketshare in 2016 so of course that's a drop in the bucket next to total TV sales. The zero blacks of OLED make the 3D (especially shots of space) more enveloping than most theaters. I saw Gravity in 3D at the theater and hardly remember the experience. To be blunt: Until one has seen a reference 3D title on a passive OLED, I table ho-hum dismissals as talking out of one's ass. If one has a physical condition that causes discomfort, that is another matter entirely.
I'd have to second pretty much everythig stated here (though I did manage to pick up my 65C8P for under $2000 back in November 2016 ).

We wanted nothing to do with curved TVs and originally thought 3D was a wirthless gimmick, but after experiencing truly breathtaking 3D on the 65EF9500 (with vignetting), the familiy voted to prioritize keeping OLED 3D, even if it meant getting a bone-headed curved screen...
fafrd is offline  
post #50 of 63 Old 09-10-2018, 07:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BuGsArEtAsTy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AVS Forum
Posts: 8,289
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 711 Post(s)
Liked: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by video_analysis View Post
Yes, many of the 2016 buyers. They are easy to ignore because the 65" OLED TVs with 3D support were still $3500 and up that year (there was a drop to under $3k for a short time). Thus, LG obtained well under 1% of the marketshare in 2016 so of course that's a drop in the bucket next to total TV sales. The zero blacks of OLED make the 3D (especially shots of space) more enveloping than most theaters. I saw Gravity in 3D at the theater and hardly remember the experience. To be blunt: Until one has seen a reference 3D title on a passive OLED, I table ho-hum dismissals as talking out of one's ass. If one has a physical condition that causes discomfort, that is another matter entirely.
Regardless, there are a lot of us out there that just don't like the 3D home experience. The glasses are annoying, and the 3D just looks fake to some of us. If anything, I just find 3D irritating, partially because it doesn't actually look like 3D to me. It looks like layers of 2D on top of one another, like those stereo picture things. If anything, it takes me out of the experience instead of drawing me in.

And yes, it causes me discomfort too. It gives me headaches in some cases, but not all the time.

I get that you like it, esp. with your TV, but I think you underestimate the inconvenience factor for the masses. Do you really expect families to buy 5 sets of glasses so that they can watch a 3D movie at home? Just about nobody I know has done that, even the rare 3D fan. It's like they buy it for themselves and then force their wife to watch too, but that's about it. At a certain point, convenience trumps quality and/or features.

But it's moot. 3D is dead. We can speculate all we want about the reasons, but it's too late now. It's dead and it's not coming back.

Actually, in terms of convenience vs. quality, the real winner here is Netflix 4K HDR. That has both quality and convenience. Way better than 1080p cable, and way more convenient than 1080p Blu-ray, and arguably more convenient than cable too. The main thing it is missing is up-to-date network TV, news, and sports.

OTOH, I think the masses might actually buy into 8K. Why? Because it doesn't decrease the convenience factor in any way. I'd be overjoyed if they just continued to develop 4K to maximize its potential instead of concentrating on 8K, but I won't argue against 8K per se either, because it won't come with the baggage of inconvenience.

Last edited by BuGsArEtAsTy; 09-10-2018 at 07:29 PM.
BuGsArEtAsTy is offline  
post #51 of 63 Old 09-10-2018, 07:54 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,586
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4280 Post(s)
Liked: 3704
Yes, it's dead (even though I have several Universal, Warner, and Disney titles en route before the end of the year), but passive glasses are cheap and not cumbersome (the TVs were packaged with 2 pairs).
video_analysis is offline  
post #52 of 63 Old 09-10-2018, 08:14 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
golfster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St Louis, MO
Posts: 1,857
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 757 Post(s)
Liked: 629
I myself will wait for 16k. I am just tired of having to sit back more then a foot from an 80" screen so I do not have to see the pixels.
golfster is offline  
post #53 of 63 Old 09-10-2018, 08:22 PM
Member
 
Jess Sayin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Hawai'i
Posts: 170
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 42
The word "dead" is wrong. You can't have the best 3D theater in Canada with the great IMAX dual projectors, with new releases coming out in theaters and disk in 3D, and be "dead."

It has become very niche, like high-resolution audio disks, but not dead. Overstating it sounds like a wishful dislike for the format, not an objective statement of its actual status. One can follow bluray.com 3D release news and buy new releases in 3D from UK region 2 world. That's niche but not dead.

That said, I agree with the wishlist for UHD a few posts up were a good set of qualities that outrank the value of 8K.
boe likes this.
Jess Sayin is offline  
post #54 of 63 Old 09-10-2018, 09:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,586
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4280 Post(s)
Liked: 3704
And Warner and Universal are still releasing domestically. As for language, it's safe to say it's on life support at best (no displays made today are available with it anymore).
video_analysis is offline  
post #55 of 63 Old 09-16-2018, 08:21 AM
boe
AVS Forum Special Member
 
boe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,284
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1207 Post(s)
Liked: 545
Once 8K becomes common they'll have to bring 3D back - either that or invent a new reason to buy a new TV. Except this time they can actually make 8K a little more impressive with big screens, fast refresh, brighter screens, more bandwidth, more contrast.
boe is offline  
post #56 of 63 Old 09-16-2018, 04:32 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,903
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1101 Post(s)
Liked: 623
8k should be nice. We will all end up owning one someday. No, they will not dethrone the 2016 3D Oled models from their "best tv ever made bar none" title/position. But...they will be better than any other 2D only tv. And most owners will be thrilled with them, as very few have actually seen a 2016 3D Oled model in action. They will never know better.




So I say, enough with this 3D talk. Only serves to hurt the feeling of the poor unfortunate souls who can never own such a rare and priceless gem. Let's be kind and focus on the viewing pleasures of higher resolutions...and how they will benefit us.


Voted most desirable mate by the ladies every year! Klan leader! Mob boss! Love advice expert! Credit cards accepted.
Kenbar is offline  
post #57 of 63 Old 09-16-2018, 06:51 PM
boe
AVS Forum Special Member
 
boe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,284
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1207 Post(s)
Liked: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenbar View Post
8k should be nice. We will all end up owning one someday. No, they will not dethrone the 2016 3D Oled models from their "best tv ever made bar none" title/position.
Ahh but to dream of both. That being said, I'm all for 8K on larger screens provided HDMI 2.1 is available before our sun burns out.
boe is offline  
post #58 of 63 Old 09-16-2018, 09:17 PM - Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 419 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenbar View Post
8k should be nice. We will all end up owning one someday. No, they will not dethrone the 2016 3D Oled models from their "best tv ever made bar none" title/position. But...they will be better than any other 2D only tv. And most owners will be thrilled with them, as very few have actually seen a 2016 3D Oled model in action. They will never know better.




So I say, enough with this 3D talk. Only serves to hurt the feeling of the poor unfortunate souls who can never own such a rare and priceless gem. Let's be kind and focus on the viewing pleasures of higher resolutions...and how they will benefit us.

I completely lost interest in stereo 3D , when it first came out i was a lot eager for it, in 2012/13 i piled on a whole collection of 3d blu rays, beyond 2014 i started losing interest and then i completely stopped watching it. my collection of 3d blu rays is there collecting dust since some years now, i havent touched it. i have a z9d that has 3d support but i've never tried its 3d (i dont even have the glasses). You can own a 2016 3d oled, and my feeling would not be hurt, because i know even if i had a 2016 oled, i would have never bothered using its 3d feature.

For 'normal' viewing, a 2016 oled isn't the best tv ever made.
JLaud25 is offline  
post #59 of 63 Old 09-17-2018, 10:57 AM
Advanced Member
 
Matsonia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 720
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 480 Post(s)
Liked: 359
I was very much the same. When I got the E6 OLED I bought and watched a lot of 3D movies and yes it looked amazing. After a while though I just couldn't be bothered anymore and started to feel like I would rather just watch the 2D versions and then when it came to selling the E6 I wasn't going to miss 3D. I can imagine if I had a much bigger 3D set like 80+ inches I would maybe miss it but its not something that I wish I had now.
Matsonia is offline  
post #60 of 63 Old 09-18-2018, 02:20 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,586
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4280 Post(s)
Liked: 3704
I was pensive about cinematic 3D at its debut. Got a few titles on my Panasonic plasma (active 3D) and was put off by the dimness. After getting my first OLED in 2014 followed by a 65" G6 in 2016, I enjoyed watching 3D to such an extent that I had to get the 77". In spite of its uniformity flaws, I'll likely keep it until it croaks. Everyone's mileage will very.
Cam1977 likes this.
video_analysis is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

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


Forum Jump: 

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

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