HDTV Expert Alfred Poor Tells You What to Buy and What Not to Buy (Video)

Alfred Poor's website is called HDTV Almanac. That's where he talks about the latest HDTV industry news and changes. He also writes about HDTVs and monitors for a variety of industry publications and does some marketing consulting for manufacturers in the field. In this 17 minute video, Alfred tells us what features we should look for in our next TV buy and which ones aren't worth spending extra money on. He also says that for a variety of non-technical reasons, you might want to consider buying your next TV between now and June -- and says you should think about getting a 3D TV even if there aren't many 3D TV shows you want to watch right now.

Comments

Listen what I have to say

[Anonymous Coward]

BUY BUY BUY!!!!!!

Listen to what I have to say

[jkflying]

BUY BUY BUY!!!!

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Anonymous Coward]

People are going to buy anyways. No one actually needs to tell consumers to consume. Supply attempts to meet demand.

Most new TV products, like all new products, attempt to come in with all the bells and whistles at a given price point; unless you are prepared to do the research yourself then you're like most people wanting an expert to break it down and allow us to make an informed decision. This does of course introduce another point of failure, the expert. Which expert to listen to?

At the end of the day, if you care for it that much, read user reviews, listen to experts, ask questions and consult your friends. After all, most people do not buy a new TV every year or two. Take a couple of days for a product that is supposed to be used for a good five years or more.

On the other hand, we can try to reduce everything with simplistic one liners...

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[realityimpaired]

When they figure out how to do 3D TV's which don't require that I wear clunkly glasses and keep my head perfectly level, I'll consider buying a 3D TV. Until then, the 42" LG flatscreen that I bought 5 years ago works perfectly well. It does 1080p, the picture is bright enough and clear enough, and it has 2 component video inputs and 3 HDMI, which is better than a lot of TV's on the market today.

For the foreseeable future, I don't see any reason to replace it unless it decides to shuffle off its mortal coil.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Moryath]

Given the size of my living room, a 720p 50" Sony I bought years ago is doing just fine. It doesn't need 1080p, because at the distance I'm sitting from it, the eye can't tell the difference anyways.

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[poetmatt]

exactly. it's almost beyond comedy to act like buying anything *now* is ever good advice.

In addition we have 4K tv's on the way. Wouldn't a better time to buy a TV be right when 4K TV's become widespread and relevant 1080P TV's become cheap as dirt?

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[skids]

I've found the tunable 3rd party glasses (Monster MV3D or XPAND X104) require significantly less head leveling. FWIW.

(BTW if you are buying for 3D, DLP is the better performer in this space, despite what manufacturers say about their LED/LCD/Plasma refresh rates. Problem being you can no longer get a DLP set smaller than huge.)

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[MikeBabcock]

Dual DLP projectors with a 3D separation box (there are several) is even nicer, but you'll have to align the two images very well.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Anonymous Coward]

>People are going to buy anyways. No one actually needs to tell consumers to consume. Supply attempts to meet demand.

Many people would disagree with you. The US consumer confidence index, while in the rise, has been pretty damned low for the past few years. Unfortunately, the US economy is largely reliant on rampant consumerism. Lack of consumer confidence means consumers are less likely to spend money, less spending of money by consumers is bad for the US economy.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[AngryDeuce]

3D is a gimmick, just like it always has been up to this point. I'll invest in 3D when we're seeing true 3-dimensional holography without the need for special glasses, and it doesn't seem like that's going to be anytime soon...

Plus I always get headaches after a couple hours of watching 3D content, so I avoid it in the theater whenever I can. The only film I even care to see in 3D at this point is The Hobbit, and that's not so much because it's 3D in itself but because I've been watching the behind the scenes footage of their technical setup and am interested to see the difference in quality compared to the typical shit-tastic, fake 3D slapped on top of a 2D movie, Hollywood crap.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't technological. I'll buy a 3DTV when they discover a way for 3D to actually be an important part of the story and to move the story (and my emotions) in ways that regular 2DTV cannot. So far, they have not been able to do it at the movie theaters so my expectation is that they will not be able to do this for quite some time.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Anonymous Coward]

While I strongly disagree with you about 720p being fine (the difference is quite visible on my 16" laptop screen when watching a movie), I think it's a fair point that even with an 1080p HD TV, you're going to be watching 720 or non-HD content 99% of the time.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[b4dc0d3r]

"You might want to consider" is about the same as "If you're in the market" plus a little of "Take a moment and think about if your wife has been complaining about something with the TV."

If you are in the market, and especially if you are in the market and don't realize it, this is probably great advice. If you are not in the market, even the normally terrible summary doesn't tell you to buy one, only consider it.

I don't understand the knee-jerk "It works for me" replies to any 3D TV story. I'm interested, I don't have one yet, and having this guy's opinion gives me more info to base my decision on.

In other words, if your needs are fulfilled right now, you are very likely not the target audience.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Anonymous Coward]

While I strongly disagree with you about 720p being fine (the difference is quite visible on my 16" laptop screen when watching a movie)

Yes but that's only true if you have Monster cables that correctly maintain the spin of the electrons as they travel down the tube, otherwise 1080p quickly degrades down to 720p anyway.

Seriously though, 720p and 1080p are indistinguishable for almost any normal use (ie. watching TV/movies). The only reason you might have any difference (outside of your head for self-satisfaction purposes) is if your screen's native resolution is 1080p and it does a piss-poor job of scaling other resolutions.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Jmc23]

Um passive 3d? It requires glasses, but they aren't clunky and you can basically put the lenses onto any frame you want. You don't have to keep your head perfectly level if you sit at a decent distance. It does require you to be vertical, so if you're one of those depressed people that's always lying down watching tv or one of those scrawny people who can't hold his head up, then they really aren't for you, what is for you is probably some exercise.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Jmc23]

How big is your living room? I used to wear glasses and even at 20' I can tell the difference between 1080p and 720p on my 37"!

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[tgibbs]

Actually, most modern 3D technology does not require you to keep your head perfectly level. Older 3D glasses that used linear polarization showed crosstalk if you tipped your head but this is not the case with the modern technology. "Active" (shutter) glasses (the somewhat clunky ones) work perfectly well with moderate tips of the head, although your brain gets confused if you tip your head completely sideways (because the parallax is not in the direction that your brain expects from the position of your eyes). Most modern passive 3D systems use circular polarization, which is similarly insensitive to head angle.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Anonymous Coward]

A 16" screen, at lap distance (say, 18") is about 40 degrees of visual arc. About the same as a 50" screen at 4.5 feet. Assuming that Moryath's living room is bigger than 10 feet (maybe even bigger than 15 feet), your experience with a laptop screen does not apply to his experience.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[JaredOfEuropa]

Advising people to postpone their purchase is equally silly, if they're after a TV that comes with features they want but don't currently have. Sure, in a few months, TV's will have become bigger, cheaper, and they will come with more features. This have pretty much always been the case, especially since flat panel displays became commonplace. Not everyone needs 3D, 4K, built-in full feature media players or digital tuners, or a TV larger than 55". If you're just looking to replace your clunky 720p "HD ready" tv (or glass tube monstrosity) with a basic, reasonably sized full HD model, then now is as good a time to buy as any. These TVs are already cheap as dirt anyway.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[beanpoppa]

I'd bet that's more the result of a poor scalar, than your eye distinguishing between the different resolutions.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Evanisincontrol]

I used to wear glasses and even at 20' I can tell the difference between 1080p and 720p on my 37"!

No, you can't. Even with 20/20 vision your eyes can not see the difference between 1080p and 720p from 20' away on a 37" TV. It's physically impossible for normal human eyes to distinguish that amount of detail from that distance. You've only fooled yourself into thinking you could see the difference.

Look at the chart Moryath linked to and read the accompanying article.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, have you even tried any of the 3D tvs in stores? The glasses for active or passive 3D have not been "clunky" in 2 years, and where are you even getting the idea about having to keep your head level? The passive 3D are essentially cheap sunglasses using CIRCULAR POLARIZATION, there is not need to be in any particular position, sideways, upside-down, whatever, they work fine. As far as active 3D, many of the glasses available now weigh less than a typical pair of prescription glasses, and again, no positional requirement.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[SpeZek]

The only film I even care to see in 3D at this point is The Hobbit [imdb.com], and that's not so much because it's 3D in itself but because I've been watching the behind the scenes footage of their technical setup [youtube.com] and am interested to see the difference in quality compared to the typical shit-tastic, fake 3D slapped on top of a 2D movie, Hollywood crap.

Same here. But that's sort of the point, isn't it?

The draw isn't the "Ooooo shiny!" factor, it's what a competent director can do with new tools to tell a compelling story. The 3D is just a part of the movie, like the sound, and not the thing to go for.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[ZorinLynx]

Even though 3D is a gimmick, 3D sets are still a good idea to buy due to response time.

For 3D to work, the pixel response time has to be VERY fast. So you are guaranteed a set with very good response time if you buy one that has 3D ability. Even if you never use the 3D ability, you will benefit!

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[circletimessquare]

For the best experience in mortal coil shuffling, I recommend Monster Cable brand mortal coil. It's death contacts are gold tipped, because that matters to digital mortal coil shuffling just as much as analog mortal coil shuffling.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[ceoyoyo]

I doubt very much he has his 50" TV on his lap.

Seriously, why do people find the fact that the eye's resolving power is measured in seconds of arc so difficult to comprehend? You need to know number of dots, screen size AND viewing distance to make any meaningful statements.

And that goes double for the "photographers" who think you need Z number of megapixels for an X x Y print.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[UNFAIRMAN]

Did you watch the video? IT'S AN INTERVIEW. Most of it is state-of-the-industry type questions. He is asked about what to buy, he gives an answer.

In the end he recommends a 47", passive glasses technology, and smart TV features are nice but not a deal breaker. Doesn't sound like a shill to me, that happens to be exactly what I would recommend to a friend.

He is brand agnostic. Listen to the part where he talks about smart TV features - he praises Roku, Apple TV and WD. He discusses how a modern Blu-ray player makes the embedded Smart TV features irrelevant and warns against manufactures "double dipping".

Sure you can be pissed at /. for giving us a piece that is too consumer oriented, but it clearly is not endorsing any brand or sales outlet.

Watch the video. (is WTFV the new RTFM?)

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Anonymous Coward]

When I'm in the electronics stores, I've noticed the image on 1080p SONYs look just like 720p SONYs, but next to a 1080p Sharp or Samsung, you can see the increased level of detail, even from a distance. It may just be that the store is using non-SONY playback equipment, that the SONY tv's "smart" logic recognizes and downgrades, though.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Moryath]

it's about the amount of sensory information being displayed and the fact that it is moving. A pimple may show up in the 1080p source but not in the 720p source.

I'm fine with not seeing the pimple, really.

Seriously though, a pimple may not show up in one frame but as you said, the images are moving, which means in aggregate, the pimple WILL be shown and visible, and if it's so small that it's disappearing from some frames, then it's on a face so far back from the zero plane that I really don't give a rat's ass about one guy in a long shot having a pimple or not.

The rest of your description is likewise meaningless. At 12 feet from the TV on a 50" screen, you CAN NOT physically tell the difference. It is impossible, your eyes don't have the resolution to handle it, and telling yourself otherwise is like telling yourself you need some $10,000 ethernet cables for your home network too.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Mister Whirly]

Or, looking at the other side of the coin, if you never use the 3D aspect of your HDTV, you have just paid more money for something you don't need. Most response times are good already on mid-range HDTVs. Just don't buy a super cheap tv.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[AlfredPoor]

I agree that we won't have holographic or other "true" 3-dimensional imaging for general entertainment content any time soon. Adding a second HD image to the data stream doesn't double the bandwidth requirements, but it does require much more than just one image per frame. We may be able to squeeze that into the current distribution pipes, but that's probably about it for now. In order to get volumetric images that you can "peek around" will require many more images per frame, and the bandwidth requirements for distribution will grow rapidly. We will need to solve that problem (among others) before true "no glasses" 3D will be a reality. That is a long, long, way off at this point.

Alfred Poor
HDTV Almanac

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless I'm reading this chart wrong, it is not correct.

I have an old 42 inch 720p panasonic plasma. My viewing distance is 3m ~ 10 feet. According to the chart there should be no difference between 480 and 720 content. However there is one, and the difference is huge. I have compared blu-ray vs dvd (same movies, 2011 releases) and I can clearly see the improvement.
Now, if I move to the back of the room, which is about 5.5m ~ 18 feet, it becomes quite hard to see the difference.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[AlfredPoor]

That's a great chart, Moryath, and it seems to correlate well with the results I got from my own calculations; 47" is the minimum size for a 1080p set when viewed at a distance of 6 feet.

Alfred Poor
HDTV Almanac

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[dave420]

We can not trust our silly sensory experiences to actually know about the world with any great certainty. That's why scientists use equipment in their experiments, and not just guess. You are quite possibly fooling yourself, and don't even seem to have considered such an explanation. Science: It works. We evolved to not get eaten by lions, not to differentiate between different resolutions on consumer devices at 20 feet.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Anonymous Coward]

FFS the guy even put a link in his short comment explaining why his 720p TV is fine, and then you put a comment about a fucking laptop screen you'll be watching at a couple of foot away at most.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[tlhIngan]

While I strongly disagree with you about 720p being fine (the difference is quite visible on my 16" laptop screen when watching a movie), I think it's a fair point that even with an 1080p HD TV, you're going to be watching 720 or non-HD content 99% of the time.

I'm guessing the people who claim 720p is fine and they can't see anymore are the same as how they're claiming the iPhone and iPad "Retina" displays aren't.

As for 720p content... it depends. The cable TV I watch is mostly 1080i now (need 1080p to display it fully). Blu-Ray content is 1080p. The only times I run into 720p content is when I play a PS3 game (some "full HD 1080" crap there - Sony was blasting HD-DVD over 1080i...)) or when I download crap re-encodes that downscaled the 1080i content down to 720p (rarely these days - I tend to seek out the original 1080i).

SD viewing's pretty limited to DVDs now that all the channels I watch on cable have HD equivalents. Even less these days when my cable company decided to move away from analogs and my TiVos don't record much (I can't believe how crappy a cable DVR can be... and no CableCARDs to enable TiVo use, either - Canada. The damn cable DVR can't even do season passes properly).

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Anonymous Coward]

I have 20/16 vision, and many pilots have 20/14. In addition, who says that you can't notice subtle differences when you move your eyes around the screen? Who says that a persons vision doesn't get better or worse depending on the time of day, how stressed we are or whatever? Who says that someone can have a moment of clarity and have 20/2 vision for 100ms? I have ready thousands of computer people talk about what a human part is capable of doing over the past 20 years but I've never seen any take everything a medical doctor would have taken into account so I will be as full of it as you when I say the following:

The article you read is BS even though I haven't read it.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[demonbug]

The rest of your description is likewise meaningless. At 12 feet from the TV on a 50" screen, you CAN NOT physically tell the difference. It is impossible, your eyes don't have the resolution to handle it, and telling yourself otherwise is like telling yourself you need some $10,000 ethernet cables for your home network too.

This is not true. The acuity numbers you base this on (from the article linked earlier) are related to vision tests like you might undergo at an optometrist, where the measure is the smallest size text you are able to read at a given distance. "Nominal" vision in this case is 20/20, which means that the subject can resolve letters 20mm high at a distance of 20 feet - this is where the 1 arc-minute of visual acuity your linked article mentions appears to come from (and never mind that people have been measured with vision down to 20/8, which would reduce this significantly - about 0.4 arc-minutes).

This is useful information, but it doesn't actually mean what you seem to be claiming - that we can see no difference in features smaller than this, and any greater resolution is wasted. In tests where subjects are assessing whether two lines line up, acuity down to about 8 arc-seconds has been observed, which is actually better resolution than the physical receptors on the retina. Similarly, a single dark line against an evenly illuminated background can be observed down to a limit of about 0.5 arc-seconds, much finer than the physical detectors in the eye.

This isn't to say that we need displays capable of sub-1 arc-second resolution, but human vision is far more complicated than you make it out to be. Saying that there is no difference between a 720p display and a 1080p display at x distance and size because the pixels are too small to be individually resolved (based on results from a test for resolving letters) is simply not true. Most people probably can detect a difference, even if the difference is too small for them to really notice in moving pictures (or are just not bothered by it). Claiming that no one can see any difference and therefore anyone who doesn't follow that simplistic chart is an idiot is, simply, false.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Jmc23]

Science, it never presents the truth. Science, most of what we know is false, that's how science progresses. Get a real clue about how science works.

Then get a clue about how medical science works, it presents stuff as fact that is really just the average. Did you know that for someone people their heart isn't on the left side? Not everybody has the same amount of vertebrae? People have different sensitivities in their senses? Or best of all, not everybody has the same capacity for acquiring knowledge or applying logic, of which you are an example.

Your logic is also flawed because we build that equipment as extensions to our senses and translate that data into stuff that makes sense for how we perceive. Objectivity in science is a lark because you can never seperate the observer from the observed, science even knows this to be true.

Ah slashdot, where 'you're just fooling yourself' is considered a logical argument.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Anonymous Coward]

I have compared blu-ray vs dvd (same movies, 2011 releases) and I can clearly see the improvement.

And the only difference between DVD and Blu-Ray video is resolution, right?

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Jmc23]

Wow, well said.

Unfortunately he probably won't get it. Victim of appeal to authority.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Jeremy Erwin]

Technically, it's a STP Cat 5 patch cable, not an ethernet cable.

The 1000Base-T ports on the back of your computer are designed to transmit a signal up to 100 meters. If you try that with a DenonLink setup, the results might not be to your liking. Similarly, the audio information is unlikely to be contained in ethernet frames.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Anonymous Coward]

>People are going to buy anyways. No one actually needs to tell consumers to consume. Supply attempts to meet demand.

Many people would disagree with you. The US consumer confidence index, while in the rise, has been pretty damned low for the past few years. Unfortunately, the US economy is largely reliant on rampant consumerism. Lack of consumer confidence means consumers are less likely to spend money, less spending of money by consumers is bad for the US economy.

Which is the whole point of Keynesian economics: when demand slumps, the government steps in and runs deficits to bring it back up. Once the economy starts going again the government backs off (and hopefully runs surpluses a bit), and lets private equity take care of the economy.

Of course everyone is in 'all-austerity, all-the-time' mode now for some reason, and we've been in a slump for the past few years unnecessarily. Paul Krugman (and other neo-Keynesians) has been making accurate economic predictions in his column and on his weblog for quite a few years now, but no one of influence seems to be listening.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand all the criticism of 3d tv, the glasses were not great now the latest penny ones are much lighter and better. Content is an issue there is not much and what there is mixed quality but I have enjoyed my 3d tv and as it is incorporated into more and more low end screens content will improve both Hollywood and the electronics giants need this. As for crap content the movie Industry is to blame big budget films have really suffered 3d or not for quality they have not lived up to there end of the deal.

I wear glasses and find it odd that people complain about wearing two glasses the only issue I have is double image reflection between my glasses and the 3d glasses. This is an issue to do with ambient light and can be a problem even when not using 3d.

Re headaches I am beginning to wonder if the there are people who go into viewings expecting to get a headache. I get headaches watching tv 3d or not sometimes. Corelation s not causation

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Abreu]

Fuckin' magnets, how do they work??!!

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Mister Whirly]

I'm guessing the people who claim 720p is fine and they can't see anymore are the same as how they're claiming the iPhone and iPad "Retina" displays aren't.

If the viewing distance is the same, maybe they are claiming that. If I held a new "retina" display iPad and and older one 20 feet away from you, I am guessing you would not be able to tell the difference either. Most people do not hold their HDTVs in their hand while viewing them however, so that is a poor comparison.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is the whole point of Keynesian economics: when demand slumps, the government steps in and runs deficits to bring it back up. Once the economy starts going again the government backs off (and hopefully runs surpluses a bit), and lets private equity take care of the economy.

Of course everyone is in 'all-austerity, all-the-time' mode now for some reason, and we've been in a slump for the past few years unnecessarily. Paul Krugman (and other neo-Keynesians) has been making accurate economic predictions in his column and on his weblog for quite a few years now, but no one of influence seems to be listening.

Because they would be idiots if they did. Keynesian economics have an absolutely terrible track record.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[burisch_research]

Mod this guy up!! (out of mod points :( )

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. I am working on this system right now (no joke) and it will be available to the consumer in 3-5 years.

Posting as AC because of NDA issues.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[AngryDeuce]

Maybe it is psychosomatic, I don't know, either way, coming out of a movie theater with a pounding headache and then having to jump in the car and drive home isn't very fun. Standard movies don't give me headaches like that. I suspect it has something to do with the flickering of the light coming in the sides of the lenses (since the movie has to be twice as bright due to the way polarized 3D works), but I don't know for sure, I'm not a doctor.

As for 3D TVs, honestly I think the TV industry is just trying to cash in and get people to replace their perfectly good 2D HDTVs. Since that obviously wasn't the moneymaker they'd hoped it would be, they're pushing the Smart TVs ("oh boy, my TVs firmware is out of date and my model is no longer supported, time to buy a new one!"). The only thing that I'm mildly enthusiastic about is the new 4K sets, but honestly, it's going to be a long time before I consider upgrading my current set. I bought my first HDTV back in 2005 when the technology was relatively new, spent $1700 on a Samsung 32" 720p set, and prices plummeted like a rock (the upgrade I bought just 4 years later cost almost half that, is nearly twice the size, and better in almost every way), so there ain't no way I'm going to be an early adopter anymore.

I feel that way about a lot of electronics these days, honestly. Model cycles are refreshing so ridiculously fast that it's just hard for me to justify buying something today when it's going to be getting marked down on clearance in 3 months when the new model rolls out.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[sexconker]

>People are going to buy anyways. No one actually needs to tell consumers to consume. Supply attempts to meet demand.

Many people would disagree with you. The US consumer confidence index, while in the rise, has been pretty damned low for the past few years. Unfortunately, the US economy is largely reliant on rampant consumerism. Lack of consumer confidence means consumers are less likely to spend money, less spending of money by consumers is bad for the US economy.

Oh look! It's the consumer confidence fairy! It doesn't exist. The vast majority of consumers don't think past next Friday. They never even consider the possibilities of losing a job, their retirement plans crashing, the market going tits up, etc. You can't peg a number to consumer confidence in the economy when 99% of consumers don't ever think about the economy.

Protip: Peace of mind doesn't exist either, but that won't stop them from trying to sell it.
Buyer's remorse and life crushing debt do exist, though.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[GrumpySteen]

It has nothing to do with them understanding or not understanding how the resolving power of the human eye should be measured. It has everything to do with the belief that more/bigger/faster/expensive is better.

It's the same psychology that drives audiophiles to spend thousands of dollars on wires that could be replaced with wire from coat hangers without any significant difference.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[jbengt]

Because they would be idiots if they did. Keynesian economics have an absolutely terrible track record.

The only part of Keynesian economics that has a bad track record is the part where you're supposed to build up a surplus in the boom times in order to pay for the deficit in bad times. Governments, under the proddings of the Wold Bank, et. al., tend to try it the other way around.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[AlfredPoor]

Excellent points, demonbug. I agree completely that there is more to the human perception systems than is credited by the "conventional wisdom." We can't hear frequencies above some limit (and that limit is much lower for me now than it was 40 years ago), yet we can "notice" quarter-wave differences in phase which form the basis for psychoacoustic effects such as surround sound from stereo speakers. I completely accept that we may well by able to "resolve" much finer details than indicated by the traditional 1 arc-minute limitations, especially under some conditions. (Under other conditions, the same average person's resolution be quite less. For example, two shades of blue may appear different under some circumstances, but identical under others.) And I certainly accept that the visual acuity of different individuals is likely to vary widely.

So the issue is not so much whether there is some fixed line that divides Acceptable Image Quality from Not Acceptable. I accept that this is a moving target for many good reasons that make the boundary conditions difficult (probably impossible) to identify with precision. Instead, I'd argue that having a general, fuzzy approximation is better than having none at all, and that while the 1 arc-minute "conventional wisdom" is limited, it probably does okay as a rule of thumb to get closer than an order of magnitude from the optimal choice.

Translation: listen to the experts and the reviews and all, but trust your eyes. Go to the store and look at the screens, and decide for yourself how big a screen you need to have so that you can see the fine detail when you're as far from it as you will be in your living room. Nothing beats the Mark II Eyeball as a predictor of future satisfaction.

Alfred Poor
HDTV Almanac

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but it is most likely the most contributing at those distances. At least I did not observe obvious compression artifacts like it used be in the dvd releases a decade ago.

Anyway my point was, that the chart linked before has as much ground to stand on as my test.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't technological. I'll buy a color TV when they discover a way for color to actually be an important part of the story and to move the story (and my emotions) in ways that B&W TV cannot. So far, they have not been able to do it at the movie theaters so my expectation is that they will not be able to do this for quite some time.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[AlfredPoor]

They're like volcanos; there is no explanation.

Alfred Poor
Gulfhaven, FL

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[ceoyoyo]

If that were the case they'd insist that the best print is the one from the highest resolution source possible and the best TV is the one with the highest resolution possible.

These people realize that after features are smaller than your eye can resolve there's no point in making the resolution any higher, but they completely neglect viewing distance. Do they all image we're looking at things from an inch away no matter how big they are? Or do they just not understand the difference between angular resolution and dots per inch?

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[DreadPiratePizz]

Back when color film was first created, it was a new aspect of the image that film makers had to learn how to use. In fact, in the early days the studios would employ Color Supervisors, who would work with the director to make sure that the colors of the frame were not only pleasing aesthetically, but could be used to enhance the story emotionally. Of course as time goes on we don't need Color Supervisors anymore; film makers have a grasp of how to use color.

Right now we have a similar thing happening on 3D films. Stereographers are employed to make sure that the 3D is technically correct, but also aesthetically right for the shot. As this becomes more normal, film makers will be able to use 3D in a similar way as color without the need of specialists.

I'm not as optimistic as Sony when they say all films will be 3D in 10 years, but I do see the potential to use 3D techniques to tell a story. You can use depth to draw the viewer's eye to certain parts of the frame or suggest relationships between characters. A character that is off the screen an 'in' the theatre is going to be more powerful than a character deep back in the screen. There is also an incredible sense of intimacy in seeing a face in 3D, which could give emotional dialogue scenes even more punch.

I think once we get over 3D as a selling point, and start thinking about it as merely a technique to enhance the film, we'll see it being used creatively and properly.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Moryath]

I sense you're a Republican. Probably a Santorum supporter.

Then get a clue about how medical science works, it presents stuff as fact that is really just the average. Did you know that for someone people their heart isn't on the left side? Not everybody has the same amount of vertebrae? People have different sensitivities in their senses?

And somehow, we manage, because every one of the things you mention involves severe edge cases, and even the severe edge cases can't go too far (the heart is much more centrally located than most people believe anyways, most idiots told to put their hand over their "heart" will put their palm over their left nipple FFS) before this thing called "death" tends to come into play due to other, far nastier congenital problems enter the picture. When you're talking about someone with eyesight of a slightly widened spectrum, or hearing that goes a tad above the standard (and most young kids can hear higher frequencies anyways, simply because of the lack of wear and tear), you're talking about variances in fractions of a percentage point outside the standard, measured zone that is normal for humanity.

There are people with severe longsightedness The GPP above who was bitching about how he can tell on his 37" TV the difference between 720p and 1080p content from 20 feet away MIGHT be one of these people, since he "used to wear glasses", or he might just be self-deluding, or he might just be viewing content on a crap TV with a crap scaler that renders anything other than native resolution with some pissy artifacting. The percentages lead towards #2 or #3 far more than #1, we would call #1 "Vegas Odds" at best.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[vlm]

My god guys, that is abstract. Let me explain how people in the real world buy a TV using myself as an example.

So last october ye olde magnavox 25-year old CRT in the living room started giving weird colors, seems the red gun is going out, and also its having some convergence problems, and occasionally some HV probs. The TV is dead! The TV is dead! Oh no the TV is dead! (or terminal, anyway) Off we go to Best Buy with a budget, and we spent what we budgeted. I was completely uninterested in the bells and whistles, all I wanted was a really big monitor with VGA and/or HDMI input from my mythtv box (most people would use a cablebox, eh, same difference) so I got a somewhat featureless TV that is larger than a feature-ful TV at the same price.

I did not bother trying to debate Keynesian economics with a wife going thru reality TV withdrawl. And frankly I also missed the women in bikinis suntanning on Survivor.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[vlm]

Back when color film was first created, it was a new aspect of the image that film makers had to learn how to use. In fact, in the early days the studios would employ Color Supervisors, who would work with the director to make sure that the colors of the frame were not only pleasing aesthetically, but could be used to enhance the story emotionally. Of course as time goes on we don't need Color Supervisors anymore; film makers have a grasp of how to use color.

For a /. compatible demonstration of this effect, compare some pastel psychedelic star trek original series sets to the somewhat more modern TNG sets, especially on planet. TNG looks almost realistic, TOS has some sets that WRT color look like something right out of the old willie wonka movie.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Jmc23]

I'm not a US'ian, but nice how you assume that just because I see the problems with science that I'm automatically some religious right wing nut. It's called being a skeptic and really that's how science is advanced by those who challenge scientific BELIEFS. Well, that and serendipity.

The point being you can't take everything science says to be gospel and you need a deeper understanding of statistics and how it's used in medical science.

BTW, my sammy isn't a crap tv and had one of the best scalers on it at the time, congrats on your poor reading ability. As well I'm from a country that's more balanced and can see that republican or democrat you're all still right wing nuts because most of you keep so strongly to your beliefs whether they be scientific or religious.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Dogtanian]

I disagree. I am working on this system right now (no joke) and it will be available to the consumer in 3-5 years.

Posting as AC because of NDA issues.

Posting as AC because you're pulling our legs, more like. ;-)

If any such system was so near being a consumer-ready product that it stood any prospect of being released in the "3 to 5 year" timespan, we'd have heard about and seen the prototype technology working long before now!

But better luck next time..... (^_^)

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[nospam007]

"Plus I always get headaches after a couple hours of watching 3D content, so I avoid it in the theater whenever I can."

That's because you are trying to focus on parts of the image you're not supposed to. In reality, whatever you focus on gets sharp, but cameras can't do that, so if you try to sharpen the blurry background with your eyes, you'll get a headache.

http://www.shroffeye.org/3d_headache.htm
http://lifehacker.com/5430492/focus-on-the-action-to-avoid-headaches-during-3d-movies

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[dow]

I sit three feet away from my 40inch screen, and I prefer 1080p to be fair. When gaming, I like plenty of anti aliasing switched on too, as it is quite noticable without it, even at 1080p. I would like to get a bigger screen in a few years time, but I'm waiting for HD3DHDTV as unless I move my seat back it is just going to annoy me without a good increase in resolution.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[wagnerrp]

As for 3D TVs, honestly I think the TV industry is just trying to cash in and get people to replace their perfectly good 2D HDTVs. Since that obviously wasn't the moneymaker they'd hoped it would be, they're pushing the Smart TVs ("oh boy, my TVs firmware is out of date and my model is no longer supported, time to buy a new one!"). The only thing that I'm mildly enthusiastic about is the new 4K sets, but honestly, it's going to be a long time before I consider upgrading my current set.

That's EXACTLY what's going on. Digital and HD TV came out, and TV manufacturers had good times for better than half a decade. First there were 720p sets, and then 1080p sets, and then 120Hz and 240Hz sets, and then the LED backlighting. Then, everyone who wanted an HD set had one, and the market is drying up. Now we get stereoscopic (I refuse to call it "3D") and smart TVs, trying to produce a market and drive up sales for things that people don't actually want. Stereo still isn't selling strong, and people who actually want a "smart TV" are going to produce their own by attaching some cheap device, that they can cheaply replace in 2-3 years without having to buy a whole new TV. There's not going to be a worthwhile reason to upgrade until someone brings SED back, OLED becomes affordable, or we start ramping up in useful resolution.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[cayenne8]

So last october ye olde magnavox 25-year old CRT in the living room...

Hmm...that doesn't sound that real world to me??

CRT? 25 year old TV? I don't know of anyone that would keep a tv that long...especially as the main tv in the living room.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[dgatwood]

And that goes double for the "photographers" who think you need Z number of megapixels for an X x Y print.

Not really. Unless you're dealing with billboards or something similarly unusual in which distance from the print is forced by the display environment, 99% of the time, people are going to get fairly close to your prints. Thus, it is not unreasonable to require a certain minimum DPI regardless of print size, based on the assumption that some people will be viewing it at a typical reading distance of a foot or two no matter how big the entire print might be.

Sure, there are exceptions that prove the rule, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good rule of thumb.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course everyone is in 'all-austerity, all-the-time' mode now for some reason

Probably for 15.5+ trillion reasons...

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[rrhal]

It's true - TV's were relatively expensive 25 years ago. If you bought a good one it would easily last that long. If you paid extra - you got a sharper picture, a bigger screen, and more longevity - maybe a nicer cabinet. They didn't come with Pandora, or computers or wireless network adapters. They keep doing what TVs do - not much reason to replace them.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[dgatwood]

Seriously though, a pimple may not show up in one frame but...

Stop right there. A pixel (at least in properly designed systems) isn't drawn based on what color appears at a particular infinitely small point in a continuous field of color variation. A pixel is drawn based on the average over an area of a particular size.

Further, because of the way human vision works, unless you are insanely close to the screen, a small change in a cluster of adjacent pixels is perceived similarly to a much larger change in only one pixel.

Thus, no matter how big the pixels are, that pimple will never disappear in one frame and reappear in the next. Either the pimple is large enough to cause an entire pixel or a cluster of pixels to shift far enough in color to be noticed, or it isn't. If it is, it will be noticed in every frame (assuming similar distance and camera angle, of course). If the pimple isn't big enough to notice in one frame, it will not be noticed in any frames. Any exceptions to this are almost invariably indicative of a bad scaling algorithm, compression artifacts, or other flaws elsewhere in the system.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[caitsith01]

+1 - I have a very similar setup to you, 720p panasonic plasma from about 3-4 metres. When I go to my friend's place, who has a 1080p panasonic plasma at the same distance, the difference is obvious. I could tell the difference 10/10 times from the same source material (we both have PS3s which are used as Blu Ray players).

Likewise the difference between 480p and 720p is not "noticeable" from 3-4 metres, it's instantly, glaringly obvious.

I've seen charts like this before - basically a bunch of HDTV nerds who prefer what some dubious analysis of biology tells them over their own eyes.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[ceoyoyo]

Very rarely does anyone hold 11x14s in their lap. Those are framed, on the wall, and most people don't get up to the six to twelve inches you might look at a smaller print from. 4x6 - 8x12, maybe in the same ballpark.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Jmc23]

Oh, oh, I've seem to have upset the science fanboi religious nuts with moderation points. America the capital of logic fallacies.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[dgatwood]

Six inches? Most people struggle to even focus up that close. Most people look at smaller prints at 14-18 inches (reading distance). It's not that hard to imagine people getting within a couple of feet of a picture hanging on a wall.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[vlm]

Why? Its not like high def makes the shows any better. I'm not watching any more tv than before I upgraded, certainly not enjoying it any more. I don't watch much TV to begin with. I'd say I spend about 4 hours looking at a monitor for every hour I spend looking at the TV. Its a pretty low priority. Aside from that I have two factors I didn't mention, but are kind of important.

1) I have two kids just barely old enough that I now expect them not to throw a ball thru the new TV or shove it off the stand. There's no way in hell I'm blowing a mortgage payment on a TV with feisty toddlers until I absolutely have to... Crash!!! Somehow they never broke the old CRT despite bouncing balls and fists and toys off the screen. Of course now that I bought a new LCD TV, they'll probably smash the damn thing next week. To be honest I'm surprised its made it 6 months. Secretly, if/when they smash the TV, I'm not buying another... and this would probably be good for everyone involved, on average.

2) I failed to mention that I spent a couple days rebuilding the built in "SD-shaped" entertainment center into what amounts to merely a coffee table. I'm somewhat handy with tools and this was a Very major job. There was a SD shaped hole to the left and a column stack with a door to the right that held all my devices (game consoles, mythtv box, surround sound stereo amp, dvd player, dvd and game cases, etc, and a shelf along the top holding remotes and a shelf along the top of that shelf (two shelves). And of course the only way to get access to the screws attaching the "coffee table like bottom" to the top was to disassemble the base almost completely. And then wedge the works back into the built in brick-work. And a bit of time refinishing some of the wood ... of course the top of the "table" was unfinished where the upper part attached, some wood putty to fill most of the screw holes, etc. At least this was assembled with screws and nails instead of glue... In some ways it would have been easier to rip the whole thing out and start over, or rip the whole thing out, leave a gaping hole in the wall, and get a TV big enough to cover the gaping hole.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[vlm]

They didn't come with Pandora, or computers or wireless network adapters. They keep doing what TVs do - not much reason to replace them.

Mine spends 95% of its time acting as a VGA monitor for my mythtv box, and about 1 hour in 20 playing wii games off the component inputs.

My mother-in-law has one of those epic "internet enabled TV" complete with all manner of apps. Of course she doesn't have internet access, and no idea why she bought a TV with all this internet app garbage, but she's old and you can pretty much sell old people anything, or maybe its a selection pressure thing like only people who are gullible have the stress level to survive to be old, or something like that. She could also plug a flash drive into the USB port on the side and watch pictures... if she owned a flash drive, or a computer, or a digital camera. And it has about 5 HDMI inputs, although all she uses is the OTA RF input to an antenna.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[AlfredPoor]

AngryDeuce, I seriously doubt that your symptoms are psychosomatic. Stereoscopic 3D works by tricking your brain. Your eyes have to focus on a plane that is a fixed distance from your eyes, but they have to converge on images that are apparently closer or further than that distance. Different people react differently to the conflicting feedback they get, which the industry calls "accomodation". The fact is that not all stereoscopic images are the same. If the conflict within the information is great enough, just about anyone with binocular vision will experience discomfort if not actual pain.(I've been subjected to some really bad stereoscopic images, and it's not fun.) Just as color or focus can be over-manipulated in a movie, so can the 3D effect. That was one of the breakthroughs of Avatar; the 3D was used to augment the story, not be the story. And the effects were done skillfully. The most dangerous images are the ones with "negative Z" effects, which means that the objects appear to be between you and the screen; positive Z means that they appear to be beyond the screen. Negative Z effects are most likely to cause discomfort, and can be executed well or poorly with very different results for the viewer. The content-generating industry is getting much more skilled on managing stereoscopic effects, and I expect that the portion of the audience that experiences discomfort will decline, but it is not likely to ever reach zero.

Alfred Poor
HDTV Almanac

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Moryath]

(at least in properly designed systems)

Your mistake.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[dave420]

Uh-oh. Hubris alert! Jmc23 knows how to fix science! Stand back!

Let me just get this straight - you don't trust science, but you trust your own dodgy senses, simply because you don't trust science. You, sir, are a moron. It is unfortunate that you were called out as a religious type, but then your delusions about science are shared by many fundamentalists, so the confusion isn't hard to understand. There are no such things as scientific beliefs, only explanations for phenomena which are backed up by evidence. (Hint: evidence is the exact opposite of what's supporting your "my sensory perception is perfect" hypothesis.) You are not being a sceptic, but a cynic. Science is practical scepticism, and hubris is practical cynicism. Guess which camp you are in.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Jmc23]

Who says I trust my senses? The reason I became skeptical of science was that it purported a whole bunch of things that my experience had proven to be false about sensory perception. This didn't automatically mean I trusted what my senses told me, it gave me an indication that there has to be an explanation that encompasses both. Since both were in conflict obviously I couldn't trust either and had to depend on actual verification of claims instead of just swallowing the pill like most other people.

Now, science does have beliefs, perhaps you just aren't aware of them. You see, science is done by humans. Humans lie about things all the time or they just get them plain wrong. Science encompasses many diverse disciplines that have become very seperate and distinct from one and other. As communication between diverse disciplines wanes the communication of corrections to previous prevailing theories or hypotheses do not get propogated. Or are you not aware of biologists discovering a phenomena that physicists had known for decades and was covered previously on slashdot? How about the scientific belief that staring into the sun makes you blind which was just invented propaganda but touted as truth and printed in textbooks? How about the belief that a woman is born with all her eggs, or that the brain doesn't grow new neurons, both of which were based on no evidence whatsoever. There are science fanbois who really know nothing about how science works and BELIEVE that everything science says is truth, when in fact science can only approach truth, and just parrot information unthinkingly, like the above poster and his chart which he clearly didn't understand.

Now I never said anything about fixing science, what I said is that everybody needs a better understanding of science, and apparently some of you also need a better understanding of reading. But thanks for pointing out to everybody why there are scientific beliefs, because most people have problems with literal reading comprehension and infer things that were never said, something very common for NT's where lies and mistruths, oops NT's call that social skills, are the social glue that holds our world together.

Re:Listen to what I have to say

[Anonymous Coward]

You have Mark II eyeballs? Where did you get them replaced?

Screw 3D movies, bring 3D games!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have tested NVIDIA 3D technology with some games at it's awesome! The effect is even more real because you are actually interracting with the world. For example Left4Dead is great with 3D glasses. Now we just need more support from game developers.

Re:Screw 3D movies, bring 3D games!

[RivenAleem]

I played Crysis 2 on the Xbox at a friend's house. He has a Samsung 3D TV using powered glasses (I don't know the tech involved, but they were not shutter glasses, apparently they send some sort of pulse through the lense) that were very comfortable.

Anyway, I nearly creamed myself. It is a crazy experience playing a FPS, looking down the iron sights and target being away there, in the distance, really...

The TV (I don't know the exact model) had it's own native conversion process for other games which worked really well, for games like Halo Reach and Portal 2. But Crysis 2, with it's native 3D setting, is amazing.

As for NVIDIA, I had a WoW Guildie who had it and was constantly bragging about how the game looked.

Re:Screw 3D movies, bring 3D games!

[ifrag]

Now we just need more support from game developers.

The benefit games have is the 3D information was already there, even retroactively, so it could instantly work on a bunch of older titles.

It would be nice if NVidia would support OpenGL 3D-vision in games (again?). I've heard older drivers could do this but have never found any workable solution for current drivers.

Re:Screw 3D movies, bring 3D games!

[jandrese]

Sadly, nVidia doesn't seem all that interested in the 3D-Vision project anymore. I don't think the sales numbers were what they had hoped for and the whole project is just on life support at this point. I don't think they're going to drop driver support anytime soon, but I don't think they're going to push game devs to go "3D Vision Certified" either anymore.

Even though in theory it should work perfectly since your 3D card knows all of the information it needs to send proper 3D to the glasses, game developers tend to do little tricks that break it. Fog and Shadow effects are a big problem, often appearing out of plane or causing massive slowdowns for instance. UI elements tend to be problematic as well, since they are frequently just 2D objects basically painted on top of the screen. Game developers aren't interested in working around those problems either for the small number of customers (a small subset of the already small PC gaming subset) that are effected.

A good modern example is Mass Effect 3. Most of the game was alright with 3D glasses, except you have to turn off shadows and some smoke effects were messed up, but there were a few places were it totally collapsed. The Galaxy map where you navigate around to your missions was totally broken in 3D mode for instance.

Re:Screw 3D movies, bring 3D games!

[Krneki]

I have tested NVIDIA 3D technology with some games at it's awesome! The effect is even more real because you are actually interracting with the world. For example Left4Dead is great with 3D glasses. Now we just need more support from game developers.

What you want is not a 3D TV, but a Head Mounted Displays.

Right now, the best one does 720p@60Hz for 3D, not good enough. But I bet in 1 year this will be the next hot stuff to own.

Here is the list of the best one:

Sony Personal 3d viewer:

http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=8198552921644817998#overview/hd

Wrap 1200VR:

http://www.vuzix.com/consumer/products_wrap_1200vr.html#features

and ST1080:

http://www.siliconmicrodisplay.com/st1080.html

3D Display...

[Nrrqshrr]

Manufacturers really should get over their 3D complex. Sure, they spent a lot on it, R&D and Marketing, but it does more harm than whatever gimmick-value it provides...

Re:3D Display...

[Cazekiel]

My dad has always been a 3D nutter; he even constructed his own 3D digital camera around ten years ago (consisting of TWO digital cams, measuring the exact distance from each other/shot timing and put onto a homemade wood frame. The images were run through a program on the computer that arranged them to make the pictures viewable through a classic stereoscopic viewer). While he has the new technology, the 3D TV, manufactured digital cams, etc., he has that complex... only it's been a lifetime love affair, organic, geeked-out and really cool to grow up with. :)

Re:3D Display...

[jellomizer]

I think Science Fiction had made us want a Holodeck like entertainment. If you cannot touch or interact we want 3D where it surrounds us. Not a TV that tends to give some depth to what we are looking at.
3D TV doesn't really effect most people because most people don't watch TV like they do movies. They watch TV slightly distracted.

Re:3D Display...

[Nrrqshrr]

Hah... now you made me all jealous. Lucky you.

Re:3D Display...

[Cazekiel]

Here's more reasons to pants' me and drag me around the track: that's my STEP-dad. My bio-dad worked for a company that put together parts used for Voyager I. I come from a long line of geeks, both blood relation and married-into-fam. :D

Re:3D Display...

[MikeBabcock]

3D wasn't expensive to develop at all, that's the lie.

3D is just a high refresh rate and an IR transmitter sync'd to vsync to flip which image each eye sees.

This isn't high tech, it was done long ago, including in video games in the early 90's.

Re:3D Display...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Science Fiction had made us want a Holodeck like entertainment.

Nope. It was porn.

Re:3D Display...

[rolfwind]

I don't get 3D TV. I just don't. I've seen some 3D movies and I liked them, but that's only when they're epic movies. They're more immersive when well done. Would I want everything 3D? Probably not, it's just too overwhelming and sensory overload. There is no reason I want anything jumping out on me for daily programming or the common movie.

Do they even manufacturer 3D displays for computers? Now that might be more interesting, but only on a "touch" screen type device where I could interact with the objects on the screen with my hand - like rolling dice or moving around cards in a game. I suppose that's far off.

Not even my nephews are really screaming for Nintendo 3DS for their birthdays or anything, so it seems 3D is in that kinda PDA before smartphones state, something that is kinda cool in the abstract and seems useful and once it's in your hands, it just lays there without a killer reason/app/interface/what_not to use it.

Maybe the next generation of game consoles will make use of it, it might be kinda cool for a driving game.... for 10 minutes.

Re:3D Display...

[demonbug]

3D wasn't expensive to develop at all, that's the lie.

3D is just a high refresh rate and an IR transmitter sync'd to vsync to flip which image each eye sees.

This isn't high tech, it was done long ago, including in video games in the early 90's.

That's one method, but people keep complaining that they don't want to wear glasses (or additional glasses) to watch TV/movies. R&D has been going into "passive" 3D, where no special glasses are needed. It doesn't work very well, from what I've seen, but so it goes. I still think active shutter gives by far the best effect, costs almost nothing to implement in the TV, and has no negative impact on 2D image quality (unlike some of the passive designs). If I were buying a new TV I'd get one of these (don't recall which brands offer them) - if you don't want 3D it doesn't affect you negatively, if you do you just have to go get some glasses (and then you are rewarded with the best available 3D experience).

Re:3D Display...

[bill_mcgonigle]

3D is just a high refresh rate and an IR transmitter sync'd to vsync to flip which image each eye sees.

The unit on display at WalMart uses cheap plastic glasses. Polarized I assume ... I didn't think to rotate two pairs to find out.

Re:3D Display...

[Anonymous Coward]

3D is about getting people to buy new in a market where most people already have a TV that meets their needs.

Re:3D Display...

[MikeBabcock]

That'd be the Vizio polarized technique which is even less exciting than flipping screens as it uses every other scanline for opposing eyes iirc. The result is that 1080p video becomes 540p per eye instead, interlaced.

Re:3D Display...

[bill_mcgonigle]

Ah, thanks.

I was going to say that the technology to make "2160" screens at that size has been done for ages, but then I thought about how expensive the replacement active shutter glasses must be, and sure enough I see them selling for $100 or so, with a 3rd-party unit going for over $50.

Re:3D Display...

[MikeBabcock]

Dual overlapping projections running full time with polarized filters is better. No image flicker back and forth.

TFS Saved Me 17 Minutes

[Anonymous Coward]

Alfred Poor...says you should think about getting a 3D TV... .

Thank you summary, you just saved me 17 minutes by letting me know that Alfred Poor is a tool.

Re:TFS Saved Me 17 Minutes

[Daetrin]

Guy who does "marketing consulting" for the people trying to sell us the latest TV with all the gimmicks tells us to buy the latest TV with all the gimmicks. Color me shocked.

There are certainly a lot of things i'd like to know about which specs and features i needed to worry about and which i don't, i certainly did a lot of research on it the last time i bought a tv, but the first thing i put in the "just a marketing gimick that i don't care about" is 3D. I say this as someone who owns a 3DS and and never gets headaches from it. 3D works for me just fine, i just don't give a damn most of the time. And from what i've gathered from talking to other people i'm far from the only one. So the fact that this guys is pushing it makes me doubt everything else he has to say.

Re:TFS Saved Me 17 Minutes

[gl4ss]

I recently bought a hdtv.

It's got 3d. I got no intention of using it. but the electronics needed for it.. well, they're not really that much. if the tv has fast enough refresh, it can do 3d with very little extra circuitry. In other words it would have been hard for me to find a set like the one I bough without 3d and that doesn't bother me too much. It was pretty cheap, imagine is nice. big enough.

everything is going to be cheaper in a year though. but this video? could have been one paragraph of text...

Re:TFS Saved Me 17 Minutes

[slyrat]

In other words it would have been hard for me to find a set like the one I bough without 3d and that doesn't bother me too much. It was pretty cheap, imagine is nice. big enough.

everything is going to be cheaper in a year though. but this video? could have been one paragraph of text...

Tvs come with imagination now? I guess it is good that it has a big enough imagination too, wouldn't want a tv that couldn't imagine enough things. That has got to make watching them a bit odd. I agree that text would have sufficed, that is what imagination is for.

Re:TFS Saved Me 17 Minutes

[Anonymous Coward]

Wish i would have seen the post before i wasted 17 minutes on a BUY BIG ASS 3D TV's advertisement.

Re:TFS Saved Me 17 Minutes

[MikeBabcock]

If you play video games, there are a lot of 3D video games (on the PS3 at least), whether you want 3D for TV or not. Some of them are headache inducing personally, like Motorstorm Apocalypse and others are beautiful like Uncharted 3. YMMV.

Re:TFS Saved Me 17 Minutes

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the advancements needed to design a good 3D display can be beneficial to the standard 2D picture. I suppose that may not be his reasoning, though.

Re:TFS Saved Me 17 Minutes

[noodler]

"YMMV."

Yeah, and i think this is exactly why 3D will not become what manufacturers and conctent creators want it to become anytime soon.
You see, there are technical issues that are inherent to 3D scening.
I'm saying this because i created several 3D CG clips a month ago.
This experience tells me that 3D will prevent certain visual storytelling elements from existing, bringing down the whole medium.
Ultimately, 3D will always produce tangible aquariums where it is more difficult to imagine them representing big spaces because your spatial relation to the picture is very much defined.
With 2D you have to mentaly re-map the picture into a space and there a sense of scale is produced.
With 3D the scale depends on and is imposed by technical stuffs like screen size and prespective relations to the viewer.
So a movie designed for the theatre will impose a completely different spatial relation when viewed on a small screen.
That is less of a problem with CG as you can re-render the home version, but for real life movies this is, and will be, a problem.

TL;DR

[alexandre_ganso]

In a couple of lines, what does he say?

Re:TL;DR

[Pieroxy]

In a couple of lines, what does he say?

Please buy the TVs whose manufacturers pay me more $$$ for.

Re:TL;DR

[MisterMidi]

In a nutshell, he says blah blah, buy your 3D TV now, more blah.

Re:TL;DR

[Jmc23]

No he doesn't say that, but thanks for proving how slashdot is going downhill.

Re:TL;DR

[amcdiarmid]

If you are in the marked for a TV right now: 1) You probably want a larger TV than you think. (It should be like a move it theater...) 2) Smart TV is not really worth an additional cost, as ROKU (or similar) are trivial to add. 3) You probably want to get a 3D TV, because a TV lasts 5-10 years & in two there will be content. 3a) There are 3 types of 3D: Funky battery powered glasses, Passive glasses (like in the movie theatre); no glasses (but you have to be sitting in a specific space, or it won't look right).

Re:TL;DR

[Pieroxy]

No he doesn't say that, but thanks for proving how slashdot is going downhill.

I did read between the lines - I should have been more straightforward in my original reply, you are correct.

Football?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this football he keeps talking about?

Re:Football?

[Anonymous Coward]

Either:

a North American game in which a ball is normally carried by hand and passed from hand-to-hand;

or:

a rest-of-the-world game in which a ball is controlled and passed by use of foot or head.

Re:Football?

[SuricouRaven]

Handegg. It's a descentant of rugby, but with more padding and lawyers.

Re:Football?

[jmac_the_man]

Either:

a North American game in which a ball is normally carried by hand and passed from hand-to-hand;

The North American game ("Gridiron Football") is so named because when the game was invented, the ball was 12 inches (1 foot) long from tip to tip. The modern ball is 11.5 inches because it makes the forward pass easier.

or:

a rest-of-the-world game in which a ball is controlled and passed by use of foot or head.

The game you're talking about ("Association Football") gets its name from being played on foot. (As opposed to on horseback, like polo.)

Re:Football?

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like we need to liberate the rest of the world, bring you democracy, elections, and football the way the white jesus intended!

Re:Football?

[MisterMidi]

From wikipedia:

Although the accepted etymology of the word football, or "foot ball", originated in reference to the action of a foot kicking a ball, this may be a false etymology. An alternative, controversial, explanation has it that the word originally referred to a variety of games in medieval Europe, which were played on foot.

The term football was already in use far before (at least 1424) the invention of American football (mid 1800s), so it seems much more likely to get its name from there instead of from the size of the ball, especially considering the game evolved from other football games.

Re:Football?

[pscottdv]

Either:

a North American game in which a ball is normally carried by hand and passed from hand-to-hand;

or:

a rest-of-the-world game in which a ball is controlled and passed by use of foot or head.

No. In the North American game, there is no ball. Balls are spherical.

Re:Football?

[jmac_the_man]

The article you're quoting from (and certainly the portion you're quoting) primarily covers Association Football (i.e. soccer.)

Gridiron football is a closer relative to rugby than either association football or the peasants playing on foot games from which association derives its names.

Given the fact that the word "soccer" was beginning to be popularized (whether by Charles Wrenford-Brown or not) around the 1880s, and that era's version of Gridiron Football was very close to rugby with a larger ball, Gridiron players decided to name the game after its defining characteristic. The ball that is 12 inches long. The "Foot"ball.

Re:Football?

[evilbessie]

My balls are not spherical, I would venture yours are not either, it would probably hurt you if I kicked them though.

Re:Football?

[Tyler Durden]

It's some pussy version of rugby they show on American TV in between advertisements for crappy beer.

Armchair expert says buy "through my site"

[mattdm]

This is some guy with a website, with a dull and poorly produced video telling you to buy stuff. I stopped when I got to the part where it says that most people buy smaller TVs than they "need". N-E-E-D.

Now, if he said "people buy smaller TVs than would be AWESOME", okay, fine. But this is basically crass consumerism pumped up by guy who isn't an "industry expert" but rather someone who worked for a crappy rah-rah-buy-stuff computer magazine for 20 years and is trying to trade on that to get some money. That's not wrong in itself, but it sure does translate to being a slashvertisement here.

Two thumbs down.

Re:Armchair expert says buy "through my site"

[__aaeihw9960]

No, you need that tv; just like you need a new car today; just like you need a smart phone.

Just like you need Brawndo, remember, It Has Electrolytes!

Re:Armchair expert says buy "through my site"

[nine-times]

Didn't watch, but he's saying people buy smaller TVs than they need? Most of the TVs that I see for sale these days are 40" or larger. As someone who had a 19" TV for several years and felt lucky for it, I feel downright decadent with my 32" LCD TV, which is now several years old.

Even setting aside the question of whether anyone "needs" a TV, nobody needs a 40" TV. It's all luxury.

Re:Armchair expert says buy "through my site"

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's got what plants crave!!

Re:Armchair expert says buy "through my site"

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on if there are qualifiers. You can "need" a particular size TV for optimum viewing quality at distance X for 1080p viewing and distance y for 720p. But need in the general sense.. definitely no such thing.

Re:Armchair expert says buy "through my site"

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, I grew up in the 80s with a 19" TV in the family room. It seemed awesome when we got a 24" TV.

I've got a 32" LCD TV at home now, and I hear my friends talk about their 50+" TVs and I keep wondering, why the fuck does anyone need a TV that big.

Re:Armchair expert says buy "through my site"

[Jmc23]

Ever heard of context? Need was said in the sense of being able to utilize the resolution. Makes no sense to buy an hdtv at 19" and sit 6' away from it, you really NEED it to be bigger.

Modded +5? Two thumbs down.

Re:Armchair expert says buy "through my site"

[guttentag]

Best part: "if you're going to be sitting six feet away, you need at least a 42-inch TV. Preferably a 47-inch."

I've had a 37-inch HDTV for 5 years and I sit about 10-12 feet away and it's fine. When I first got it I set it at the foot of my bed (6 feet away) because I wanted to experiment with the immersive experience, and it was just too much. That lasted a day or two before I had to move it.

Later on he talks about how "Internet connected TVs are going to be just incredible." And that's when I decided he wasn't just dishonest, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Don't spend $1,000 on some TV with built-in software that locks you in to certain services or providers, because when you discover that those services suck, or they change their content, or "upgrade" the service, making your built-in software (which the manufacturer claims will be upgradeable... But they'll never release an update because they want you to buy a new TV) obsolete, you're going to have a big, expensive picture frame. Hook the TV up to a computer (even the basic ones typically have at least 2-4 HDMI inputs) or a cheap box like the Apple TV or its competitors that you can replace without buying a whole new TV.

This guy talks like a TV salesman. Buy now, buy big, buy the latest crap, you're taking the manufacturers to the cleaners, etc. He's clueless.

Re:Armchair expert says buy "through my site"

[afidel]

If your viewing distance is greater than x then the ideal size for viewing 1080p content is y. Also if you go really big like a 120" projection setup you can make the screen fill up your entire vision field which is a much more immersive experience.

Re:Armchair expert says buy "through my site"

[DocSavage64109]

I'll agree with most of your post, but the "I've had a 37-inch HDTV for 5 years and I sit about 10-12 feet away and it's fine." comment is subjective. When I was a kid, we sat 10 feet from a 19" tv and considered it fine, but the 52" I have now is much better, and if or when I replace it, I'll probably get a 60".

Re:Armchair expert says buy "through my site"

[TheSync]

"if you're going to be sitting six feet away, you need at least a 42-inch TV. Preferably a 47-inch."

HD screen resolution was designed for folks with normal vision to view at three picture heights (about the occluding size of your palm and thumb if you make a "hitchhiker" thumb and hold it at arm's length).

6 feet away implies 2 foot tall screen and at 16:9 implies 49" diagonal.

Any larger and you will start seeing pixels, any smaller and you will not be able to see the full HD resolution (maybe those appeal to some people?)

Rubbish

[Cherubim1]

Poor advice. There is no need for anyone to buy anything beyond a HDTV. This is all marketing BS delivered by a corporate-paid shill.

Re:Rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor advice. There is no need for anyone to buy anything beyond a HDTV. This is all marketing BS delivered by a corporate-paid shill.

Why even that? Judging by the content I've been seeing lately, I've having a hard time justifying replacing my 19" CRT TV.

Re:Rubbish

[ciderbrew]

No Need to buy a TV. Not had one for over a year. Can't see a reason for me to get one either. Projector for films and PC to watch things on youtube. Not much on. Well, not in the UK. I'm out of the need a TV demographic.

Re:Rubbish

[issicus]

Indeed. I think im going to order a 3d tv right now....

Re:Rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

i second t he poor advice. I purchased a smart tv around chirstmas, open box, for around 550---the same product is now nearly double that, open box..... i just happened to be curious about price shifts this weekend and checked.

Re:Rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor advice.

I see what you did there.

Re:Rubbish

[Jmc23]

What the hell are you even talking about? Beyond HDTV? Nothing beyond HDTV is mentionned. Are you perhaps talking about 3D? In which case you should have said no need to buy 3D.

Then again, you'd probably be wrong again. 3D requires certain refresh rates and better circuitry for some components, buying a 3D tv, or rather let's say buying an HDTV with 3D as a feature at least gives you a higher baseline for quality.

Re:Rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole reason for advertising is to get us to buy things that we DON'T need! If we 'needed' it, we'd just go out and get it. Advertisers try to sell us 'happiness', if you buy (insert latest toy here), then you will be "happy". Which is b.s. True happiness comes from within, from helping others with no thought of being compensated, and other selfless acts.

3D is worthless to me...

[neokushan]

Due to a (somewhat) rare eyesight condition, 3D doesn't work on me. I have two working eyes, just one doesn't see as well as the other so my vision is way off balanced to the right. I am also fairly near-sighted. Day-to-day, this causes me absolutely no trouble at all. I can't wear glasses (doesn't help), so I make do with just getting closer to things.

Anyhoo, it never stopped me from being able to use a computer. Standard font sizes on standard monitors were fine, I could read them just fine. However, as displays have gotten higher and higher resolutions, I'm finding it harder and harder to read them. My eyesight hasn't got any worse, it's just that things are getting smaller.

Despite all of the advances in Technology for the differently abled, such as DPI settings in windows, it doesn't actually help. Adjusting DPI breaks so many apps that it's more trouble than it's worth. 3D seems to be the big new thing everyone wants you to buy and I can only pray that it fails so badly, people just give up trying to sell it. I worry because if 3D becomes the "standard", there's possibly going to be a shift towards content that is only /i>3D, in much the same way that content has shifted to "HD everything", meaning I'm screwed.

So, for little ol' me, don't buy into 3D. Please.

Re:3D is worthless to me...

[gl4ss]

adjusting dpi in windows is nowadays almost flawless for me, certainly more useful than it's trouble. the only thing is that some crappy programs like gimp need to be adjusted(from run properties) to not use pixel doubling(works fine with pixel doubling.. but.. it's a drawing program so).

only with very few old programs, usually installers, there is problems. usually very poorly written programs. with them you sometimes can't reach buttons because they're so far in the window.

(one trick to avoid pixel doubling is to use display scaling that's not 150%, 200% even numbers too).

and I depend on this to be able to use a 1920x1080 15 inch screen.

Re:3D is worthless to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Aah yeah, I also have a eyesight conditions(Keratoconus, progressive stage) with similar results as you have, and im running into the same problems, Especially with windows, its quite horrible to use when my eyes tire, Linux is not as bad due to all the fonts being a notch bigger by default and also vector drawn by the looks of it.

Fortunately there is still control + for browsers..

Re:3D is worthless to me...

[neokushan]

Indeed, it's a lot better than it used to be but I still have a major program that doesn't like it - Visual Studio.
Now the funny thing is, it's "DPI-Aware" and the interface is, mostly, fine. The problem is the Windows Form Designer. It works, but the results on my screen differ from a non-DPI adjusted screen. So simple things, like lining up a bunch of text boxes so they're straight (and thus visually appealing) just doesn't work, not unless whoever runs the program is running the same DPI settings. Oddly enough, if a program is designed with DPI set to the default, on my DPI-adjused screen it's still fine. It makes no sense, really.

When I encounter a program that doesn't adjust correctly (as you said, often older or badly written programs), you can disable all DPI scaling easily enough but VS completely ignores these settings.

I'm lucky in that I have a decent sized monitor - 22", but at 1080p I find it just about uncomfortable to use. I only need about a 10% increase to be comfortable with it, but that's just enough to break things. I have a 24" monitor at home that's 1200p (1920x1200) and it's perfect for me. I'm saddened that you can't find 16:10 monitors any more because of this.

Re:3D is worthless to me...

[skids]

The content should not worry you too much. There are some cinematic effects that producers simply won't use in a 3D movie because they don't come over well in 3D, so those will be missing from the cinematic bag of tricks, but it is hard to imagine a 3D production that won't be watchable in 2D without ruining it.

Where you need to worry is in the lack of 2D viewing equipment. People with your types of conditions need to start pummeling the TV manufacturers and theaters publicly, because they have stopped producing/providing glasses that allow you to turn 3D off while the rest of the people in the room are watching in 2D. So if you want to go see a movie with friends who like 3D, you wouldn't have to be the killjoy if you were able to get a pair of left-left or right-right lensed glasses.

Re:3D is worthless to me...

[neokushan]

You're quite right, it's the equipment that's the issue rather than the content. I guess what I'm (poorly) trying to say is that I'm worried 3D will become the "standard" much like HD has, whereby there's no "off" switch because why wouldn't people want the better picture?
3D glasses aren't actually a problem. They simply don't "work" on me, I see the same image with or without the glasses (or rather, if I watch the 2D version it's the same for me, as 3D-without-the-glasses is of course all blurry). I've tested this on a range of films, as I know people complain that some films look awful in 3D (Clash of the Titans), while others look good (Avatar). I've even heard people say that animated films suit it best. I've tested all of them (Cloudy with a Chance of meatballs for the latter) and had the same result. I've also tried various different types of glasses, Active and Passive, on a range of different 3D displays (thanks to a friend who worked in Best Buy UK before it shut down).

However, that's "Glasses 3D" (I'm sure there's a proper term for that). I can live with that, (I don't even mind paying the premium for it in the cinema if that's what others want to see), but I've had a particularly bad experience with "non-glasses" 3D. Namely, the 3DS. When the slider for the 3D was put above a certain point, I got this very odd effect whereby I would see both images at the same time, flickering between each other very quickly. After a few seconds, I could already feel a migrane coming on (And I don't really get headaches, no matter how long I stare at screens for - something I've attributed as a positive side-effect of my eyesight). I completely get why people complain of headaches from using a 3DS for too long, even if they don't notice the "flicker" it's definitely there. That's what worries me about the future - you can turn 3D off now, but for how long? I'm hoping things like headaches and such are enough to persuade manufacturers to have an off button for the foreseeable future, but all it takes is one or two "breakthroughs" in the technology and I could potentially be screwed.

Re:3D is worthless to me...

[Jmc23]

Ever tried wearing an eyepatch as well as the colored balls on a string focusing exercise for bringing about some co-operation between your eyes? That and some other exercises worked for me, the default landing position of my right eye used to be staring at the right side of my nose.

Re:3D is worthless to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

With keratoconus myself (probably not progressive as hard contacts fix my vision for the most part), I don't have any issues with either small screens or larger screens when wearing contacts, and I can see the resolution differences much better than my 20/20 vision brother, who claims he can't tell the difference between 480 and 1080 on a large screen. Now, when I'm just wearing glasses both small and large screens are difficult to read text on, but I can still play games on my 3DS in 3D or watch 3D movies in a theater without too many issues and still enjoy the 3D.

Re:3D is worthless to me...

[neokushan]

Unfortunately I doubt that would be much help. The reason my vision is so skewed is because my left eye is considerably worse than my right eye.

I have what's called "nystagmus", or "wobbly eyes" (or Googly eyes, as friends in school used to call them). That's why glasses don't help, they don't stop the eyes moving. My left eye wobbles so much that I can't read text with it, no matter how big. I can just about pick out faces and certain objects/shapes if they're distinct enough. My right eye is, by comparison, pretty good. It does pretty much all the "hard" stuff, such as reading and whatnot. Even if I were to get some kind of cooperation between my eyes, I'm not sure I would see any benefit.

Re:3D is worthless to me...

[Jmc23]

Well, as long as you're happy trying nothing.

I've always found that the people who stay sick are the ones who always listen to doctors and science that tells them there isn't anything they can do. Control is control and you can learn to control any part of your body, ANY part.

Re:3D is worthless to me...

[neokushan]

Why thank you for that insightful input. It's funny, though, in my experience the ones that stay sick are the ones that completely ignore the advice of doctors and trained professionals. You know, the ones that have spent years and years practising and learning their craft.

But hell, don't just take my word for it - have a look at what others with the same condition as myself have to say:

http://www.nystagmusnet.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5516

Oh what's that, not a single reply from someone saying that 3D works on them? Yeah, it must be because we're all listening to our doctors or something. Somehow it's their fault.

You completely underestimate the lengths I've gone to in order to improve my vision. The sad thing is that there's not much that can be done - it's congenital and even if I were to find a cure tomorrow, my vision would probably be worse off due to compensation from my own brain. But there you go!

Re:3D is worthless to me...

[AlfredPoor]

First, neokushan, I understand completely about the problems that people with monocular vision face with stereoscopic 3D, and the fact that it is a useless feature for them. My brother is in this situation, so I get it.

But we went through this in the transition from black and white to color TV, too. Colorblind people don't get much more (if anything) from color TV, yet they are still able to enjoy it just as much as if the color were turned off. In the same way, stereoscopic 3D can always be "turned off" to just show the left or right image of the frame, so it will always be compatible with monocular vision; all the needed information is in there. And if you're watching in "mixed company", blocking the image for your weaker eye will give you a tradtional 2D image; you'll just need to wear the glasses to get it.

Alfred Poor
HDTV Almanac

Re:3D is worthless to me...

[Jmc23]

I wasn't able to watch 3d either, hell, I couldn't even see 3d in the real world.

Doctors learn about how to try and fix things from the outside but for the most part just cover up symptoms. The problem with this approach is that when it comes to controlling YOUR body the only person who can learn that is YOU. For that you have to try things completely out of your understanding because if it was within your understanding you wouldn't have the problem.

The brain is amazingly plastic, the fact that I had never seen objects, let alone objects in 3d, for the first 33 years of my life in no way stopped my brain from learning how to piece together the puzzle.

The only cure is to know thyself.

Re:3D is worthless to me...

[Jmc23]

btw, you didn't read your link to well did you?

Re:3D is worthless to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm lucky in that I have a decent sized monitor - 22", but at 1080p I find it just about uncomfortable to use. I only need about a 10% increase to be comfortable with it, but that's just enough to break things.

You know -- I'm probably in the same boat as you are, except that my eyes are fine. My problem is using an old 17-inch 96dpi TFT at a roughly twice the normal viewing distance (one metre away instead of the half a metre that most desktop users get). Especially with web sites, I have to zoom practically everything 10-20% up -- one wouldn't believe how many "designers" order a 13px font, rejecting the browser's settings. Everything above 10,5pt (14px) looks fairly okay to me, although I'd prefer a 11~12 pt body text.

On a positive note, non-web user interfaces have pretty decently sized fonts nowadays, so I haven't had to mess with them.

Re:3D is worthless to me...

[Misagon]

You are not alone. Approximately 20% of all people can not experience stereoscopic 3D. Within those 80% who can, many get head aches... and some people (like me) can experience 3D but just don't like it.

Re:3D is worthless to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually about the same % of the population as lefthandedness cannot see 3D, so this is a BIG market.

I have two functioning eyes, but no stereo vision. I win art prizes and drive, its no big deal, but miss pouring from a bottle to glass at arms length as depth perception is missing.

Blu-Ray vs. DVD

[XxtraLarGe]

This guy must have bad eyes. I have a PS3 & 42" 1080p TV. Ours is probably 8-10 feet away depending on where you sit in our living room. I can easily tell the difference between a Blu-Ray and DVD. In fact, it's a tremendous difference in clarity.

Re:Blu-Ray vs. DVD

[Lumpy]

You can tell even more of a difference if you were to sit closer. you are sitting outside the window that physics dictates, but then you might be a superhero that has laser vision.

99% of people CANT tell the difference between a clean SD signal and a 1080p signal on a 42" beyond 12 feet. And I am betting that you would have trouble if someone were to show you a very clean superBit DVD and the bluray of the same content.

Re:Blu-Ray vs. DVD

[danbob999]

Yes but do you see the difference between 720p and 1080p? Maybe not, or just barely.

Re:Blu-Ray vs. DVD

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you talking about line art, or colour images? I can believe the line art story, but HDTV has better colour reproduction than SD, which is what usually makes me (and probably others) spot the difference faster. Also, HDTVs tend to bastardize SD to seem like higher resolution, which tends to add dynamics around lines and flattens what's in between.. bleh.

Re:Blu-Ray vs. DVD

[afidel]

BS, I'll buy that you can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p beyond 10-12' but the difference between SD and HD is very, very noticeable on a 42" set even at ~16' (distance from my tv to our typical sitting position on the couch).

Re:Blu-Ray vs. DVD

[O('_')O_Bush]

On the PS3? Yes. 720p is like looking through a slightly blurry filter, and makes seeing fine details (claymores, a prone sniper) much harder.

On Cable? Not at all, thanks to heavy use of lossy compression even on HD channels.

Re:Blu-Ray vs. DVD

[XxtraLarGe]

You can tell even more of a difference if you were to sit closer. you are sitting outside the window that physics dictates, but then you might be a superhero that has laser vision.

No superhero-vision. I had both a PS3 & PS2 hooked up to the same TV, put a Blu-Ray & a DVD from a combo pack in their respective players, and toggled the source back & forth to show my wife (who also wears glasses) the difference. I'm sure a better test would have been two PS3's hooked up with HDMI, with the DVD being upscaled, but that wasn't really an option for side-by-side comparison at our house.

Re:Blu-Ray vs. DVD

[danbob999]

your cable company offer 1080p channels?

Re:Blu-Ray vs. DVD

[Jeremy Erwin]

There is such a thing as 1080i. If everything goes to plan,the 1080i fields can be assembled into 1080p frames. However, filtering and artifacts knock the effective resolution down a tad.

Re:Blu-Ray vs. DVD

[Lumpy]

Please cite, because I can cite a buttload of sources that back up what I say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance

http://hdguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/hdtv_distance_chart.pdf

http://www.hdhes.com/tv/hdtvviewdistance.aspx

any my favorite that a lot of people have tested and in fact have found to be accurate.

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter

Sorry but you perceive sharpness. put up a real resolution chart and try again. Because this is what I have done as well as others and their findings fit mine.

42" TV at 12 feet is SDTV to your eyes no matter what the signal.

Re:Blu-Ray vs. DVD

[afidel]

I don't care because on real content available in the real world with a few real tv sets I can tell you that the difference between SD and HD in obviously visible.

Re:Blu-Ray vs. DVD

[Anonymous Coward]

You can show people the new muppets movie for the difference. With 1080p blueray you can see the strands of fiber on the muppets while the dvd you cannot.

Re:Blu-Ray vs. DVD

[Anonymous Coward]

The obvious visual difference between DVD and BluRay isn't the resolution; it's just that Blu-Ray contains a lot more information. Uncompressed video at standard resolution looks superb but you'll rarely see it. DVD and all broadcast TV are compressed to shite. Ironically, TV could look a lot better when it was all analog.

Re:Blu-Ray vs. DVD

[bill_mcgonigle]

Are you assuming angular resolution is the only important factor? How about color spaces, quantization noise, and blocking artifacts?

Re:Blu-Ray vs. DVD

[bryan1945]

My LG Blu-ray player does a very nice job on upscaling my DVDs, so I can see a small difference, but really not that much. But since I had/still have a lot of DVDs, I made sure to check reviews that mentioned how well the players upscaled. Of course, not all DVDs are created equal, and they would still look like crap if I had a Cray try to clean them up.

BUT YOU NEED TO BE READY FOR 3D

[alen]

you need to buy a 3D TV for the most money even though there is little media for it and even though they will be a lot cheaper in a few years when or if there is more media just to be ready for the media. remember you won't be able to buy a 3D TV in a few years when the 3D media arrives so you have to buy it now just to be ready for the arrival

anyone remember maximum PC 15 years ago? they were saying the same thing. buy expensive crap before there is any media just to "be ready". like the hardware is not going to be cheaper when the media arrives. i see the same nonsense now about the upcoming 4K TV's

Re:BUT YOU NEED TO BE READY FOR 3D

[LoverOfJoy]

Before I read the comments I was guessing reasons to buy now might include things like, "Get 3D now before it's got twice the DRM packed in with it." or 'Ideally you should get a new TV before June because that is when they are releasing the TVs with hidden cameras that send data back to 3rd parties." Instead it sounds like he's simply saying buy 3d now so I get a larger bonus.

I can believe there are sometimes reasons to buy early even if later prices will come down but it doesn't sound like this guy has any legitimate ones.

Re:BUT YOU NEED TO BE READY FOR 3D

[gutnor]

And worse, you are never really ready. People with laser disk are still waiting for their content and people with first gen *anything* have to buy a third/fourth gen of the same gadget when the content is available (I fell for that, I have this nice Marrantz DVD player, that can only read the DVD from 10 years ago, not the bulk of the DVD created later).

Also happened with the tech itself: "upgradable" motherboard as long as socket, base frequencies, multiplicator, port, ram, or disk tech do not change in the meanwhile - i.e. upgradable for 6 months at most.

Guy who depends on HDTV industry says "Buy HDTV's"

[crazyjj]

Film at eleven.

wth

[matt_king]

If you are going to post "advertorial" content SLASHDOT, at least mark it as such. I just lost some respect for this site.

ha ha

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy just summed up all the reasons I still have a 27" CRT as my main TV; and will keep it until the day it dies a horrible smokey death... Maybe by then the quality of an LCD (or whatever 3 letter meme, is the TV of the day, at that time) will be worth it.

   

Non-technical reasons between now and June?

[sirdude]

So, like many others I'm sure, I can't be asked to watch the video... but I'm curious as to what these non-technical reasons are for buying a new TV before June. Anybody care to list them?

Re:Non-technical reasons between now and June?

[AdrianKemp]

Didn't watch the video, but from a few comments here I think it's summed up in one word:

sports

In other words, no one with a brain need care.

Re:Non-technical reasons between now and June?

[alen]

the 2012 models will ship in volume later in the summer so you can pick up a 2011 model on sale

Re:Non-technical reasons between now and June?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone mod Miss Adrian up to legitimize her feeling of enlightenment.

Re:Non-technical reasons between now and June?

[sirdude]

Ah, thank you :)

Re:Non-technical reasons between now and June?

[alen]

ive looked at TV prices for myself and others and in the june/july/august time frame there is a lot of discounting. usually manufacturers will run specials with a retailer at a time over a few weeks

Re:Non-technical reasons between now and June?

[residieu]

The TV manufacturers are retailers need to increase their sales numbers for the second quarter, so you should help them by buying their inventory before the next models come out. (You should buy those in July - September)

Re:Non-technical reasons between now and June?

[Nidi62]

Didn't watch the video, but from a few comments here I think it's summed up in one word:

sports

In other words, no one with a brain need care.

Because intelligent people neither have played nor are interested in watching sports.....

Re:Non-technical reasons between now and June?

[AdrianKemp]

Just watching, but yes that's about right.

Re:Non-technical reasons between now and June?

[bryan1945]

Are you also adverse to going to sporting events, too? Concerts, art showings, theatre also? Playing with children or pets, talking to people in real time? Watching anything in real time, perhaps? Or are scripted events the things you like to see/watch/experience? I hope that if you have or will have kids, you let them know how unimportant their sporting activities are that you can't bare to watch them.

Re:Non-technical reasons between now and June?

[AdrianKemp]

I think you're taking this much further than my comment ever entailed:

I said: Anyone who specifically buys a new HDTV for sports has no brain.

Everyone heard: Anyone who watches sports ever is a dolt.

Very different. Now I freely admit that my comment was a bit ambiguous as to which I meant, but I assure you I meant the former.

Anyone who is *that* absorbed in sports needs help. That's distinct from having the money to buy an HDTV at your leisure and enjoying the additional resolution on things you already watch.

Okay, so someone link to some good advice then?

[mojotooth]

Everybody seems to be bashing this guy as some kind of shill, could some of those same folks please point out some advice that they *would* give credence to?

Re:Okay, so someone link to some good advice then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only buy things you'd miss not having, and buy them when word of next season's model drops the price of the current one. Don't upgrade unless it gives some sort of actual benefit.

Re:Okay, so someone link to some good advice then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's my advice:

1: Current TV broken?
2: Yes? -> Buy one that suits your current needs. If it costs over $1000, reevaluate concept of "wants" and "needs". Buy it (you were going to anyway). GOTO 1.
3: No? -> Wait until it breaks. GOTO 1.

Re:Okay, so someone link to some good advice then?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. To get small TV: go to Goodwill, pay $10-$20 for old 30" CRT.
2. To get big TV: go to craigslist, pay $100 for used 50" projection TV.
3. Media: go to library (free), Big Lots etc. ($3-$5/dvd), Amoeba (for TV series), swap with friends.
4. Watch online stuff on laptop.
5. Use remaining money to visit Real Life (is 3D without glasses, has great resolution).

Re:Okay, so someone link to some good advice then?

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding. I'm getting so sick of this consumerist society, all in order for the economy to "grow". Has anyone ever considered that we don't need the economy to grow simply for the sake of growing? Has anyone considered the long-term impact of infinite growth on the plant? This economic system is too much and needs to go.

Re:Okay, so someone link to some good advice then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dad? Is that you?!?!

Re:Okay, so someone link to some good advice then?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you need to insert a sleep statement somewhere in there -- it isn't nice to consume 100% of the human brain in an infinite loop.

Re:Okay, so someone link to some good advice then?

[caitsith01]

Do you like movies, sport, and high quality TV shows and value image quality?

Yes: buy a 1080p plasma and a blu ray player and enjoy insanely high quality video in your living room.

No: buy any other TV on the market and a DVD player then sit around congratulating yourself because "no-one can tell the difference between DVD and blu ray anyway" etc etc (or post the same on slashdot every time a TV related comment is made).

Re:Okay, so someone link to some good advice then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's my advice:

1: Current TV broken?
2: Yes? -> Buy one that suits your current needs. If it costs over $1000, reevaluate concept of "wants" and "needs". Buy it (you were going to anyway). GOTO 1.
3: No? -> Wait until it breaks. GOTO 1.

Don't forget step 0. Buy into nameless twit on Slashdot's value system.

Why $1000? Why not $500? Why not free? Heck, you can come pick up my 16 year old CRT projection TV thats better than modern TV's in some ways for free, I can't give it away, and I know I'm not the only one. Whatever reason you have for looking down on those spending over $1000 for their TV, get over it and allow people to make their own damn decisions on what to do with their own lives.

Shop for Deals

[na1led]

My dad purchased his Samsung 55" LCD 3D TV with glasses for $2200. I purchased my Samsung 51" Plasma 3D TV w/ glasses in December for $599 at BestBuy. I always try to find the best deal, not the latest and greatest.

Re:Shop for Deals

[Anonymous Coward]

Depending on what sort of LCD your dad got that Plasma could end up costing you more in the long run. Depending on how long you decide to keep it. And since you are being frugal I would say you are going to keep it a long time...

Power consumption on a plasma is huge... Most of the ones when I was looking a year or so ago were in the 200W+ range and 5-20 standby. The LCD I ended up with was less that 1milliwatt standby and 70-100w running depending on features turned on/off.

Ask any business and they will tell you up front fixed costs are nothing. Its the recurring costs that eat you alive.

Re:Shop for Deals

[afidel]

Ok, let's assume your figures are correct and that your screen can use 70W versus 200W for a plasma. Now for a device left on it costs roughly $1/W for a device left on 24/7 (@$.10/kwhr). So your potential savings are $130/year. That means to make up the difference between a $2200 tv and a $600 tv both would have to be left on for over 12 years to reach breakeven, add in the time value of money and it's closer to 16 years, and that's worst case scenario for the cheaper display. If you take a much more reasonable 4-6 hours a day and it's obvious that both displays will be long dead before the energy savings make up the difference in cost.

Re:Shop for Deals

[futuresheep]

http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-consumption-chart/ Using the average power cost for the United States, the difference between a 65 inch Panasonic plasma and a 55 inch Samsung LCD is about $70.00 per year. It'll take 20 years to make up the $1400.00 difference in price.

Re:Shop for Deals

[rwv]

My dad purchased his Samsung 55" LCD 3D TV with glasses for $2200.

Your dad got an LCD TV or and LED TV? The latter is the higher-end that I'd expect to see for $2,200. Seems to me that your dad cares more about his time than his pocketbook --- and is willing to buy a more expensive TV when it's not on sale so he doesn't have to worry about something wonky breaking after two years. I used the same logic when I bought a new TV a year ago... except I got a 2009 45" Samsung 8000 for about $1,099. It works fine... supports 3D and "smart features"... I've played with the "smart features" and occasionally let it play Pandora, though I generally find the interface to be terrible. I've never used the 3D features.

SPAM

[Alsee]

Apparently Slashdot's new tagline is:
Ads for nerds. Stuff you should buy.

-

Sales pitch for 3D?

[markalot]

There is no real technical information here, this video is targeted to the standard consumer, not a slashdot reader.

What I find most offensive though, is that you get 3/4 of the way in before you realize this is really a sales pitch for 3D. Yes, he really wants us to buy 3D so the installed base gets bigger and more content is available. Sorry. I wear glasses, I will never sit down and watch a 3D movie. I just don't care about 3D, nor do I see any sense in spending the extra money for a 3D set. It doesn't make any sense. I still laugh when I think of a 3D TV purchase for my family of four. ... now does this come with 4 glasses? No, just two? Oh, there's a special on extra glasses? How nice. So I pay hundreds more for a 3D set and I need to buy extra glasses.

Total binspam - why was this even posted?

[Barbara, not Barbie]

Want some real advice? Do not buy a 3D tv. There's almost no content, the technology is immature, and the price will only go lower for better technology as time goes on.

BTW - this guy is no expert.

Who submitted this shite anyway? Oh, there was no submitter - it's a slashvertisement brought to you by roblimo. Can we have a way to down-mod stories? We've only been asking for that for years and years and years now. It would be better than those stupid anti_social_media buttons.

Re:Total binspam - why was this even posted?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Do not buy a 3D tv.
There is enough content if you're into gaming since many existing games can be played in 3D mode using special drivers, and the technology is mature enough to be enjoyable. If you've got the spare cash, I can highly recommend it. If not, it'll be cheaper next year, as always.

Re:Total binspam - why was this even posted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Want some real advice? Do not buy a 3D tv. There's almost no content, the technology is immature, and the price will only go lower for better technology as time goes on.

In some cases, a 3D panel has a better picture quality than the 2D equivalent. Even if you never watch 3D content, if the best PQ is your goal, a 3D panel may still be the way to go. Maybe this was mentioned in the article, but naturally I didn't read it.

Re:Total binspam - why was this even posted?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's tagged for 'idle' .. can you block based on tags?

Re:Total binspam - why was this even posted?

[FunPika]

How about we all just exclude Roblimo in our user options, nothing of value will be lost (I checked, everything Roblimo posts here appears to be videos, and at least half of them seem like slashvertisements).

Re:Total binspam - why was this even posted?

[afidel]

Gah, trying to get a cheap, low power card to do 1080p is hard enough, I'm sure that doubling the workload means you'd have to have a $350 graphics card that requires a one kilowatt PSU.

Re:Total binspam - why was this even posted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing as almost all 2011 or 2012 model HDTVs that are any good do do 3D then purposely buying a 2D-only TV could be somewhat foolish.

Buying a 2D-only TV almost inevitably means either buying an old model or buying a low end piece of junk.

There are some 2D-only TVs that are quite good like the late Pioneer Kuro or the Sony XBR960, but they're far more the exception than the rule.

If you don't want to watch 3D, just don't turn it on.

Re:Total binspam - why was this even posted?

[grumpyman]

I think the technology is definitely immature. The glasses is an issue and the content available today is kind of force-fed to showcase 3D for no good reason (wow factor). What ultimately is needed is some 3D that is just subtle enough to aid real vision, not the kind of 3D effect that you see a missile flying at you. I.e. when you are watching a football game in person, you don't actually see the linebacker jumping into you, or do you?

Re:Total binspam - why was this even posted?

[Barbara, not Barbie]

How about we all just exclude Roblimo in our user options, nothing of value will be lost (I checked, everything Roblimo posts here appears to be videos, and at least half of them seem like slashvertisements).

I'm in. Thx for the nudge. Nothing personal, Rob.

Re:Total binspam - why was this even posted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, as soon as Rob left, they started to rape what was left of slashdot. Video ads for a stupid jacket. Video ads for a guy claiming to be an expert PR talent (despite his office being in a cruddy minimall), then video ads for some guy wanting to get his tech/tv website some attention. I was one of the first few hundred people to start coming to Slashdot and even though it took me awhile to register an account when it officially became "slashdot", I was still one of the first three thousand accounts. Some fifteen or more years later, this place is turning into a festering shithole at the hands of those responsible for caring for for it. They don't give a shit about the site anymore, so why should I?

Fuck slashdot and fuck these advertisements.

Re:Total binspam - why was this even posted?

[Anonymous Coward]

If nobody buys a 3D tv, then who'll make content for it? Who'll fund the R&D to improve?

If it's not too much more expensive, why not? (Especially if you have a PS3 with a few 3D enabled games.)

Re:Total binspam - why was this even posted?

[Barbara, not Barbie]

If nobody buys a 3D tv, then who'll make content for it? Who'll fund the R&D to improve?

The same suckers with more money than brains^W^W^W^W^W^Wearly adopters who buy all sorts of s*** before it's really ready for prime time? You know - the ones who went out and bought 42" DLP 720i rear projection TVS for $4000 over 3 years rather than putting aside $50 a month for 3 years and buying a 50" 1080p plasma + 1000 watt surround-sound system for cash.

They're now stuck with their PoS because they can't bear the thought of throwing out something that was so expensive, even though they couldn't get $300 for it if they tried.

Re:Total binspam - why was this even posted?

[ezweave]

This is some John C Dvorak level useless information. I'd advise anyone looking at buying a tv to do anything but watch this. It's rambling and about the level of discussion you'll get from a Best Buy salesman. His blog is also full of misinformation. This is binspam.

Re:Total binspam - why was this even posted?

[Barbara, not Barbie]

Definitely. The best way to buy a TV is to go and look at it. Find friends who bought similar TVs. Ask around. Everyone has different tastes.

Re:Total binspam - why was this even posted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Want some real advice? Do not buy a 3D tv. There's almost no content, the technology is immature, and the price will only go lower for better technology as time goes on.

Bad advice. Don't place a premium on 3D, perhaps, but the cost to a 3D to a higher performance TV is nominal. I kept my last TV 15 years, so the fact it will be cheaper next year is meaningless if I am buying this year; its not something that can be added.

I just bought a new TV, what I looked for was the best picture quality I could get in a wall mountable TV (like adding 5 sq ft to my room). If I had excluded 3D sets from my search, I would have settled for a very basic TV with a lower quality picture. I'm not buying any additional glasses. I paid for several features I didn't care about (OTA tuner for instance) to get the ones I did, One day in the next 15 years I might care about 3D, then I can buy more glasses then, instead of buying a new TV.

Re:Total binspam - why was this even posted?

[sglewis100]

Want some real advice? Do not buy a 3D tv. There's almost no content, the technology is immature, and the price will only go lower for better technology as time goes on.

Perhaps they are even cheaper now, but six months ago I got a 42" (needed a TV for the bedroom, didn't want/need bigger than 42") Vizio for $650, two pairs of cheap passive glasses in the box. Never bought more glasses, you can just keep the ones at the movie theater to add to your collection. While not wireless, I have Ethernet handy in that spot, and it even does Pandora, Netflix, etc. Even today, looking at non-3D prices it's hardly a premium. Is there a ton of content? Who cares, it's absurd to think it would double, triple or quadruple over the next couple of years. Don't go buy a 3D TV just to buy one, but if you need a TV, there's no reason not to consider them. And ESPN 3D has been quite enjoyable, as have the few BluRays I've played with, DirecTV has a few other offerings besides ESPN, and Vudu rentals are hardly a fortune.

BTW - this guy is no expert.

Alfred has a fairly extensive history in the business. PS: You're probably no expert either. Heck, I'm certainly no expert.

Re:Total binspam - why was this even posted?

[sglewis100]

I think the technology is definitely immature. The glasses is an issue and the content available today is kind of force-fed to showcase 3D for no good reason (wow factor). What ultimately is needed is some 3D that is just subtle enough to aid real vision, not the kind of 3D effect that you see a missile flying at you. I.e. when you are watching a football game in person, you don't actually see the linebacker jumping into you, or do you?

I recently went to a NHL game and for the first time in my life had 1st row seats. If not for the plexiglass, and it moved more than I thought it would, yes, actually, someone was about to jump into me. Ok, not jump, but be knocked into me by someone else shoving him with all his strength. Sports in 3D is actually rather fun.

Re:Total binspam - why was this even posted?

[grumpyman]

Your comment is very true though - if the viewer would like to 'simulate' the kind of experience on first row, then yeah let them feel like that.

Re:Total binspam - why was this even posted?

[Barbara, not Barbie]

If you're buying plasma (LCD picture quality is crap in comparison), 3d is still double the price - or more, so no, it's not worth the extra $$$.

Re:Total binspam - why was this even posted?

[sglewis100]

If you're buying plasma (LCD picture quality is crap in comparison), 3d is still double the price - or more, so no, it's not worth the extra $$$.

Perhaps that's all true. I'm quite happy with a $650 TV and a $80 sound bar. Looks great, sounds great. I am aware that $2500 TVs and $1000 surround sound systems probably sound better and look better.

HD4K2K

[Thorfinn.au]

next big thing is HD4K2K = 4 times the number of pixels than an HD screen, some sport this year is being recorded in HD4K2K so are most movies, where was it in this advertorial NO WHERE.
Horrendously expensive at present like $55k for a 3m screen but prices will drop with Moore's law regularity

Re:HD4K2K

[Thorfinn.au]

The PS4 will have HD4k2k capability, rumoured for Q4-2013

Alfred Poor's Computer Cures

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. I remember this guy when he ran a column in Computer Shopper. Still, I didn't watch the video. :)

So....

[Lumpy]

Having a blog makes you an "expert" now.

Glad to know the bar is lowered a lot for expert status.

Posting under top comment for exposure

[L4t3r4lu5]

When logged in, go to Options, then Exclusions section. Check the box "Roblimo" and hit save.

No more advertising videos.

3D may never be worth it

[SpeedyG5]

Personally I go to the movies to relax and enjoy. I do not go to have things popping up in my face(Insert porn joke here). I am there to be immersed in the story I don' t want to ducking, bobbing and weaving. What is the obsession with 3D, they keep trying to shove it down my throat(Another porn joke). I could get a little subtle depth play, but that wouldn't warrant me paying good money for a new plasma. Regardless of wether the content is there I don't want it.

Re:3D may never be worth it

[16K Ram Pack]

I give it a year, maybe 2 before the 3D thing dies out. The studios liked hyping it because you couldn't see it on TV, the theaters liked it because they could charge a premium. But the fact is that audiences have got bored with it. They're opting for 2D.

Re:3D may never be worth it

[noodler]

"What is the obsession with 3D"

It's a realy realy neat trick..

Room in the OAM spectrum for 4K?

[tepples]

Wouldn't a better time to buy a TV be right when 4K TV's become widespread and relevant 1080P TV's become cheap as dirt?

Not if A. your TV just failed, or B. you're trying to put together a home theater PC with the latest version of XBMC and you've discovered that it doesn't have a composite output and your existing 480i TV doesn't have a VGA or HDMI input. And I don't see 4K (i.e. 2160p) TVs becoming widespread for a long time. There isn't enough room in the OTA spectrum for 4K, and people with old TVs don't want to have to buy yet another converter box to downscale 4K broadcasts to 2K (i.e. 1080p).

Re:Room in the OAM spectrum for 4K?

[afidel]

My tv just failed and I went out and bought a 2011 LED backlit non-3D model on clearance sale ($550 on a $850 MSRP model). I'm really not sure why you would want to pay twice as much for a screen with almost identical specifications but with some added electronics for 3D that are of basically no use today and arguably likely to always be of little use.

Re:Room in the OAM spectrum for 4K?

[Anonymous Coward]

4K TV could be done over-the-air if broadcasters move to a more efficient codec. MPEG-2 (which is used by ATSC and DVB-T) is far from state of the art; 4K can be encoded using MPEG-4 or h.264 quite nicely at 15Mbps, which is a typical data rate for broadcast HDTV, or even 10Mbps (leaving room for a second lower-resolution channel).

Slashdot - What a crock of shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anonymously as I've already modded.... but c'mon Slashdot. What the hell is this crap you're slashvertising???

A 17 minute clip (I only got 10 minutes in before it stalled) of some random guy pushing 3D tellies as if they're going out of fashion?

BUY 3D NOOOOOW! IT WON'T GET ANY CHEAPER!!111!!!!1!!!!

Seriously? Even second-hand car salesman are more honest than that. My Mum would watch this and sum it up to be a load of bullshit. So why the hell is it posted on a tech site FFS? I'm on the verge of quitting Slashdot now. I can get more up-to-date stories on the BBC that don't appear on Slashdot until about 2 days later, and the stuff that does appear on Slashdot is now watered down bullshit.

Is this slashdot or some other crappy review site?

[rullywowr]

Really. What's next, "car salesmen recommend top features to look for when you buy a vehicle?"

Wow.

To paraphrase the current Aussie Prime Minister...

[Anonymous Coward]

... a good website has lost its way.

Like WTF? I think it's pretty safe to say there'll be open revolt if this happens again...

Re:I've noticed a lot of advertisements lately.

[Frosty Piss]

If I recall, Slashdot said "sponsored" Slavertisments would be clearly marked.

Buy a TV?

[Lando]

People talking about buying 3d or any television because they need it? Frankly, my television is sitting in the corner and hasn't been turned on in 2-3 years. What need is there for a television? I don't see the need to buy DRM encumbered technology, which is what I understand tvs are these days. So really, I doubt anyone "needs" to buy a television. Food on the other hand...

Consider it a different way, if the guy was saying I need a new computer, when my current system works fine and beyond that telling me that I have to buy one with features that I won't use for years, you gotta be kidding right?

4K on the way

[AlfredPoor]

Yes, 4K television is under development. ("4K" is roughly equivalent to 4 times the resolution of 1080p, for those not familiar with the term.) I would not recommend waiting for 4K for several reasons. First, people are fine with watching DVDs (which are standard definition) on their HDTVs right now, and don't even bother getting the Blu-ray version of a movie (which is high definition). They tend to sit too far from the screen for its size, which means that they can't see the added detail anyway. They're not going to sit twice as close (or get a set twice as large) in order to get the extra detail that 4K offers. And we're probably at least 10 years away -- if that -- from having a distribution system (broadcast and physical media) that can get the image to your set in the first place. So I'm not going to postpone my purchase just for 4K technology.

Alfred Poor
HDTV Almanac

Re:4K on the way

[Anonymous Coward]

Under development is an understatement, LG will have models available within the next 2 months ([size]LM9600 series), Sony is also looking at releasing consumer 4k displays this year. It's the programming that is lagging behind the display technology, just as the case with 3D.

Re:4K on the way

[AlfredPoor]

There certainly are 4K displays now; they've been demonstrated for years. The problem is that we don't have a distribution system for them; the same was true for HDTV. We had the display resolutions (especially on computer monitors) long before we had a system to distribute broadcast content, or the infrastructure to create the content for that matter.

Alfred Poor
HDTV Almanac

Re:4K on the way

[Junta]

Not all of the LM9600, only the 84 inch.

Re:4K on the way

[UttBuggly]

Yes, 4K television is under development. ("4K" is roughly equivalent to 4 times the resolution of 1080p, for those not familiar with the term.) I would not recommend waiting for 4K for several reasons. First, people are fine with watching DVDs (which are standard definition) on their HDTVs right now, and don't even bother getting the Blu-ray version of a movie (which is high definition). They tend to sit too far from the screen for its size, which means that they can't see the added detail anyway. They're not going to sit twice as close (or get a set twice as large) in order to get the extra detail that 4K offers. And we're probably at least 10 years away -- if that -- from having a distribution system (broadcast and physical media) that can get the image to your set in the first place. So I'm not going to postpone my purchase just for 4K technology.

Alfred Poor

HDTV Almanac

Alfred,

Regarding passive versus active shutter 3D glasses, can you comment on screen brightness and supplied resolution?

I've read that passive is "bad" because the viewer is getting "half" of the 1080P due to the alternate polarization whereas active shutter setups are "good" because both eyes "see" 1080P.

In addition, one of the overall complaints of 2D versus 3D is the reduction in brightness for 3D movies. (Ebert carps on this all the time in his reviews and rarely recommends seeing a film in 3D) Is this really an issue with 3D televisions where I have control of brightness and contrast and 3D settings (depth, etc.)???

Thanks!

(currently debating 2012 models of Samsung and Panasonic 65 inch 3D plasma sets for purchase soon, btw)

Re:4K on the way

[dgatwood]

We *almost* have a distribution system. In principle, Blu-Ray players can add multiple layers to allow greater storage per disc, and this doesn't require any hardware changes to existing players, and some Blu-Ray hardware can actually read data at up to 12x speeds, which is 8 times the maximum allowable data rate for a Blu-Ray movie (don't ask). This is probably enough to handle 4K content at more-than-respectable quality with only minor firmware tweaks on the optical side of things.

Two things we don't have (AFAIK) are: 1. an HDMI specification that can handle that data rate (I'm pretty sure 4K video exceeds the HDMI 1.4 maximum), and 2. hardware codec chips that can decompress video at such high resolutions and data rates. Neither of these is a huge barrier.

The real barrier to things like 4K is that the studios can't make money from it. The market is showing pretty clearly that most folks aren't willing to pay more than about an extra buck or two for a Blu-Ray copy of a movie, and in some cases, they've even resorted to artificially inflating their Blu-Ray numbers by refusing to sell the DVD except in a combo pack with a Blu-Ray, all so that the Blu-Ray format doesn't look like a dismal failure. Turns out that for most people, 720x480 is good enough.

Based on that, it seems likely that the cost of recapturing and re-encoding existing content at a still-higher resolution would have almost no payoff. Without the content, there's no incentive to buy 4K sets, and without 4K sets, there's no incentive to encode content at such an insane resolution. Maybe if the companies doing the telecine work upgrade their gear to start from a 4K camera master (as you put it, the infrastructure to create the content), the re-encoding cost could be minimal in the future, in which case 4K might go somewhere eventually, but for now, I'm not convinced the market cares enough.

Re:4K on the way

[Anonymous Coward]

Alfred, what about the benefits to passive 3D that 4K can give you? Right now as I understand it passive 3D cuts the horizontal resolution in 1/2. With 4K you can get passive 3D at full 1080p resolution, no?

Re:4K on the way

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm sure enough of them were done at 4k to get the ball rolling.

Re:4K on the way

[strack]

who cares about television. i want a 4k 40 inch desktop monitor. the same dpi as my current monitor with 4 times the desktop space.

what?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF is an HDTV expert?

Strange for slashdot

[mdsolar]

This seems like a strange post for slashdot. But, I will say that HDTV does make a difference for baseball, so he's wrong and I still like my 30 inch Sony CRT HDTV better than any plasma or led screen I've seen. Being immersed in a pixelated view is distracting.

Each game would still have to be patched

[tepples]

The benefit games have is the 3D information was already there, even retroactively

But even if the information is there, it's not automatically extractable. Because each game has its own unit scale (one may use inches, another centimeters, another meters), a driver doesn't necessarily know the appropriate inter-pupil distance in game units, which rules out automatically changing the view frustum for both left and right eye views. Worse, some may use more than one scale in the same scene (one for the playfield, another for the skybox, another for the HUD), which rules out even setting one IPD per EXE. So each game would have to be patched to provide IPD information during rendering.

Transcript

[QuasiSteve]

TItle: Industry Expert Alfred Poor Gives HDTV Buying Advice
Description: There are features you need and some you don't

[00:00] <TITLE>
A "Slashdot TV" logo appears in the bottom left with "An Interview with Alfred Poor of HDTV Almanac" to its right.
"What mistakes do / people make when / they buy an HDTV?" zooms into view.

[00:04] Alfred>
The biggest one they make of all is not buying [...]

[00:06] <TITLE>
A webcam picture of Alfred Poor fades into view.

[...] the right size TV.
A lot of people were trained - I don't know about you, but I was trained, growing up, to not sit too close to the TV - it's going to ruin your eyes.
In fact, I was taught: hold your palm out so that if it covers up the screen, then you're at the right distance.
That's great for the old-fashioned standard definition TV but it's not the right move at all for HDTV.
I try to tell people to think in terms of going to the movies; You don't sit all the way in the back of the theater so that you can cover up your screen with your hand - You want an immersive experience, where you're enveloped by the image.
That's the same thing you want at home.
For most people, they typically get a screen that's a lot smaller than what they really should have.
There are a lot of rules of thumb out there - some of them are wrong, but they basically.. if you're gonna be sitting about 6 feet away, you need at least a 42" screen.
A 47" screen would be even better.
So, that's one of the big mistakes that people make.
Now the prices have come down so much that a larger screen doesn't cost that much more.
So I encourage people to buy probably the next size up from what they they ought to get.

[01:22] <TITLE>
"Are HDTV prices going / to keep on going down?" fades in and out of view. These titles appear throughout the video.

[01:28] Alfred>
Actually, the story is that the prices have been coming down very steadily.
They've been coming down almost 20%/year, for the last 4 or 5 years.
If there's one business that I would not want to be in, it would be manufacturing HDTVs.
It's a brutal, brutal business.
We've seen Pioneer get out of it.
Panasonic is backpedaling, even though they have this huge commitment to plasma screens.
SONY is trying to figure out how not to make their own anymore, just job it all out to somebody else in China.
Philips doesn't make 'm anymore - they've just loaned the name to somebody else to stick on their sets.
On and on and on - it's a brutal, brutal business.
We've got Samsung, we've got LG - you've got a handful who are doing a good job of making a go at it, but they're probably losing a lot of money on it also.
So the price has been coming down pretty steadily.
Will they keep coming down?
Well, each year I say they just can't keep coming down any more than they have, just because you get all the materials' cost.
And yet, they continue to do so.
I think it's gotta slow down - I think we're probably getting near the bottom.
If we see cuts at this point, it'll be more due to distress than increased efficiency.
It will be because there'll be either retailers or manufacturers who are stuck with inventory and trying to get some cash out of it, rather than sit there having to pay interest on the inventory.
Though having said that, we're gonna see a bunch of good opportunities, probably in the next 3 or 4 months, to get some very good deals on HDTVs.
Sears has announced that they're gonna be closing a whole lot of stores, and that could put a whole lot of product into the channel at low prices as they try to liquidate some of that inventory.
Each store is gonna have several of each model on hand.
So you're talking about hundreds of sets right there.
If Sears starts advertising prices that are way low, well Best Buy, Costco, they're gonna have to follow them right down into the mountain, so that they don't give up market share.

[03:44] <TITLE>
What's the HDTV

Re:Transcript

[Anonymous Coward]

So to sum up: Buy a 47 inch 3D telly now! Buy Buy Buy!!!!

Re:Transcript

[Anonymous Coward]

Please share how you made this, or where you got it. Thanks in advance.

Re:Transcript

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're looking at a 42" screen from 10 feet away, nobody has the eyesight to see the difference between the DVD and a Blu-Ray disc.

Holy crap, what a crock. Someone's confused about resolving power again.

Re:Transcript

[kava_kicks]

Hey QuasiSteve, How did yo generate the transcript?

Re:Transcript

[Anonymous Coward]

THANK YOU. The stream was unwatchable (see my other comment). This allowed me to get the content minus the frustration.

Re:Transcript

[QuasiSteve]

THANK YOU. The stream was unwatchable (see my other comment).

- by Anonymous Coward
uhmm... you mean there's only one of you? If so, I feel that I should tell you that I really disapprove of all those goatse trap links you posted back in the day :(

anyway, you're welcome ;)

Re:Transcript

[QuasiSteve]

magic!

No, not puff the magic dragon naturally speaking - that would be the sane way to do it.

Typing magic + Audacity (because the ooyala video player is pants).

[switches on TV]

[Rogerborg]

Yup, still works. Sorry, Alfred, I interrupted you while you were shilling. Please do go on.

2160p OTA?

[tepples]

some sport this year is being recorded in HD4K2K so are most movies

How many Mbps does 2160p video take, and can it fit into an 18 Mbps broadcast channel?

Re:2160p OTA?

[afidel]

and can it fit into an 18 Mbps broadcast channel

No, especially since we standardized on MPEG2 for ATSC/QAM. It might work if you did MPEG4 in the ~38Mbps available in a 6MHz QAM-256 channel.

Re:2160p OTA?

[TheSync]

The only people chatting seriously about 4K TV in the US is DirecTV (who can use H.264 and have 30 to 60 Mbps on a transponder).

However I really doubt there is going to be much move to broadcast 4K. I think a lot of people are feeling "burnt" by the effort for stereoscopic 3D in the home, and are not likely to jump into 4K distribution unless someone (like a CE) is pushing money at them.

The next big thing in over-the-air TV in the US is lower bit rate H.264 encoded mobile channels, not 4K or 3D.

Re:2160p OTA?

[Anonymous Coward]

How many Mbps? Depends on what codec you use and what level of artifacting you're willing to accept. 2160p using MPEG-2 probably isn't going to happen, but if you switch to MPEG-4 or H.264 you'll do just fine. The biggest problem with switching to 2160p broadcast is that it would make the installed base of TV tuners obsolete; people with existing sets would need a converter box, much like you need one now to watch DTV on your old analog set. That also means that 2160p - exactly four times the 1080p screen size - is the likely future standard, because the downscaling problem is simpler than if some other resolution were used.

Right now, broadcast TV has an 18Mbps maximum bandwidth in the US and other ATSC countries; many stations are encoding their HD at slightly lower bit rates so they can squeeze in a secondary SD channel. The bandwidth of DVB-T (used in Europe and some other places) is a more complicated question because there are multiple versions of the standard, and some are already using one of the more advanced codecs. The cable guys are generally using a lot less bandwidth and people mostly find the result acceptable.

3D TV?!?

[gabereiser]

I'll pick one up when I don't have to wear those stupid glasses and strain my eyes just to watch a movie... Also once the cost of 3d bluray disks are equal to non-3d... MPAA always trying to get more money for crappier content... I do own a 2d HDTV and I love it but I don't think paying a premium for 3d when there's so little 3d content available and the technology isn't mature enough to NOT cause headaches is worthwhile...

Yes lets forget aboui the lack

[future assassin]

of good content on television and the recycling of movie ideas from 20 years ago to actually enjoy our bigger tv's.

#slashdoteffect

[bmc13]

account has been suspended already

Re:Room in the OTA spectrum for 4K?

[tepples]

Perhaps because some "smart TVs" include 3D support at next to no additional cost.

dyslexic headline

[cellocgw]

I believe the correct title should be "Self-titled HDTV expert Alfred gives poor advice."

Many DVDs are interlaced

[Geof]

What jumps out at me about bluray is not the resolution of the image, which on my 37" TV doesn't seem that significant for most scenes, but rather its stability. Subjectively, it feels much more solid. I think the difference may be the stability of the image due to the interlaced signal recorded on many DVDs. I realize it is deinterlaced for display, but that deinterlacing is not perfect.

That said, given how much DRM bluray is infested with I'm not sure it's worth it.

3d TVs are great if you need 120HZ support

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that's it. For those who want 120HZ support it's not like TV manufacturers are going to advertise the "120HZ input support" feature. Use a 3D TV and happy birthday. Admittedly, only those who know they need it, need it. Although those who see it in games do think it's pretty cool. Not frame interpolation, a real 120HZ source.

Problem with 720 these days

[gr8_phk]

The problem with 720 is that they don't seem to be making 720 panels any more. It's always 1366x768. This requires that the source video be stretched by 16/15 which is impossible to do without blurring everything a little. Normally scaling 720 to 1080 is a 1.5x which is reasonable to do. Also scaling 1080 down to 720 is easy to do while keeping a good picture. Scaling either of these native resolutions to 768 causes problems.

IMHO this is an industry wide effort to make 720 TVs look worse than 1080 even when viewing 720p video. There really is no other explanation. I've heard claims about standard size glass which is all made for the 1080 world, but that doesn't hold up. I'd prefer a 30" 720 to a 32" 768 - just throw away the extra glass - or just give me "native" mode and put a black border around the extra 48 pixels (24 top, 24 bottom). Anything is better than converting 720 to 768.

Not worth it

[Anonymous Coward]

3d is cool in a theater, where you are in a seat paying attention to the screen. Avatar was fun.

At home, not so much. You give some attention to the screen, walk in and out, play with the dog, answer the phone, live normal life. You aren't sitting in one place watching. You might even have a web page open too.

3d is a flop. HDTV took advantage of analog shutdown. The "industry" took advantage of that by making us all go HDMI/HDCP. Now that we all bought new gadgets that still look really good (and a 1080p movie on a 50 inch looks really good) we aren't replacing those till they die. A TV lasts, hopefully, ten years.

Call me then and we can revisit this. Anyone who thinks that good sets are being tossed for 3D is nuts or caters to the upper 1% of videophiles.

Got the video without Flash?

[DdJ]

I'd like to watch it on my HDTV, and none of the HD sources I've got can play Flash content.

Anyone got a link to the raw video or a YouTube or Vimeo video or an HTML5 page or something?

Negroponte nailed it in Wired issue #1

[rbrander]

NINETEEN years ago, no less - March 1993, Wired's very first numbered issue, 1.01. His back-page column starts off:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.01/negroponte.html

"High-definition television is clearly irrelevant.
When you look at television, ask yourself: What's wrong with it? Picture resolution? Of course not. What's wrong is the programming.
Why is this aspect of the big picture so unclear? "

That said, I've always like more resolution, more bandwidth in every way. I'm with Ebert that higher frame rates are more important than 3D or resolution - very pleased to hear James Cameron proselytizing it and The Hobbit using it. None of that changes that the ideal experience would be good content, in higher resolution at higher frame rates. And, yes, in 3D where it does something useful. (i.e. not at all in Captain America, Thor, or Transformers, where it added nothing but a headache.)

I'm like that guy's dad, posted above, who made his own 3D camera - never done anything that extreme, but I have collected 3D books and viewing devices and so on since the 3D ViewMaster I had as a kid. FWIW, I have seen a couple of movies where 3D was worthwhile. Not just Avatar and Hugo, where the 3D really did enhance the entertainment, but Herzog's "Cave of Forbidden Dreams" where it was truly crucial to the documentary of a place I'll never be allowed to see in person.

So, frankly, I'll buy all the TV capability that they can bring to market affordably. Hoping for good content after that to use it is a whole separate issue. Always a crapshoot.

As a TV, not so much

[phorm]

But as a PC monitor... 4K would be quite nice indeed.

4K is a ways off

[DreadPiratePizz]

4K is still a ways off, even in cinemas. Literally 90% of films shown theatrically in the United States are finished in 2K. We are talking huge budget films like Captain America that choose to finish in 2K still. Very few places even have 4K projectors. It's still going to take a while before every cinema is 4K, let alone 4K in the home. I would not be surprised if 20 years from now 4K is still not widespread in homes.

My thoughts, FWIW.

[Yaztromo]

At some point, whether you like it or not, 3D will probably be a given on new TV sets. We're already getting towards a tipping point where 3D TV panels are nearly down to the same price as 2D panels, and at some point the manufacturers won't see a point in running separate assembly lines for 2D and 3D capable panels, and will simply make 3D panels to save costs.

Late last year, when my wife and I were in the market for a new TV, we looked at features and prices, and decided upon a Sony 46" EX720. It's a 3D TV, but we didn't buy it because it was 3D -- indeed, it was cheaper than some of the other 2D TVs of the same size, and had a better refresh rate (240Hz). Two weeks later, Best Buy here in Canada had a Cyber Monday deal that combined this set with a Sony 3D Blu-ray player for just under $1000, and we snapped it up.

Now what we haven't done yet is buy any 3D glasses. We aren't using it to watch any 3D content yet, although I hope to pick-up a few pairs during a trip to the US next month (as the glasses are stupid-expensive here in Canada -- up to twice the price of what they cost in the US). If we never desired to ever watch any 3D content, I'd still get the same set -- the refresh rate and price make it an excellent 2D television, and my wife and I couldn't be happier.

The set is also a "Smart TV", and it's here that I have more reservations. I'll admit I really enjoy the Netflix support (and use it daily), but otherwise I find the widgets to be a near useless pain in the ass (you have to go through a bunch of menus to even see them, when I could just reach for the iPad and do the same task quicker), the web browser is totally useless (and slow as frozen molasses), and much of the streaming content (outside Netflix and Sony's own Video Unlimited (formerly Qriocity)) is often woefully out-of-date.

(I should also note here that I suspect that the Smart TV's sold in the US have much better online services available in them than the ones sold virtually everywhere else, including here in Canada).

And there's the rub with "smart" TVs -- the TV manufacturers aren't all that interested in being content providers. Sure, I get software updates for the TV now, but what about in three years? My last TV (Sony Trinitron Wega) lasted for 12 years before we decided to replace it. What use is the "smart" content going to be in three to five years after Sony and the content providers have lost interested in this generation of Smart TV's? I'm going to be stuck with a pile of useless menus with no content (which really shouldn't be all that hard to avoid). I don't yet trust Sony to keep providing software updated and that the various providers will continue to support this TV for the 10+ years I expect to use it for.

So my take -- there is really no need to avoid the 3D TVs. Virtually all of them have better refresh rates than similarly priced and sized 2D TVs, and they're getting to price points where there may not be a significant savings difference. We're nearly at the point where all TVs will have 3D panels in them, and will be 3D capable in one way or another). Smart TV is of more dubious usefulness -- if the TV you like comes with it and the price is right, go for it -- but I certainly wouldn't spend extra just to get smart TV features. Better to pay ~$100 every three to five years to get a separate smart box and ensure you're still going to have content.

Yaz

Unstructured!

[a-zA-Z0-9$_. !*'(),x]

tsk, tsk, restructuring:
While (Current TV broken)
    Buy one that suits your current needs. If it costs over $1000, reevaluate concept of "wants" and "needs". Buy it (you were going to anyway)

Re:Unstructured!

[Black Parrot]

tsk, tsk, restructuring:
While (Current TV broken)

    Buy one that suits your current needs. If it costs over $1000, reevaluate concept of "wants" and "needs". Buy it (you were going to anyway)

Don't forget to designate the new purchase as "Current TV", or you'll spend a lot of money before the loop terminates.

Re:Room in the OTA spectrum for 4K?

[cayenne8]

Yep..that's why I got my Samsung 59" Plasma last year....what a SWEET tv image that thing puts out!!!

Re:Room in the OTA spectrum for 4K?

[dgatwood]

Perhaps because some "smart TVs" include 3D support at next to no additional cost.

Yup. And can be firmware-upgraded at any time without your knowledge to add exciting, new DRM features that blank out your TV when you play a movie from your digital video jukebox... err... I mean... protect the quality of your movie viewing experience.

Thanks, but I prefer my TVs to be as dumb as possible. It is an appliance, no different from my toaster oven.

Related topic ...just

[Kittenman]

I watch old movies. I'm interested in a Samsung that makes a 2D movie into a 3D image. So, how does this work with old movies? Does Bogart in 'Casablanca' spill his whiskey on your lap? Does Cagney get electrocuted in your front room in 'Angels with Dirty Faces"? What I'm asking is, does the 3D-ization work for the older movies?

And yeah - when I saw a link of Alf's site for "buy my book at 60% off" I closed it down...

Re:Related topic ...just

[AlfredPoor]

Kittenman, a ton of money and time is being invested in learning how to convert 2D content to 3D images at a lower cost and faster. Some conversions are done more or less by hand, and take months millions of dollars to convert a feature film. Other technologies -- such as the ones included in some 3DTVs -- can do the conversion in real time. The big difference is the quality of the results. Huge strides are being made in automating the process to create fairly good 3D conversions, and I expect that we'll start seeing lots of back-catalog 2D television episode and movie content become available in 3D within two years or so.

For now, the real time conversion in the TV sets has serious limitations. The demonstrations that I have seen have no negative Z effects (no objects appear to be between the viewer and the screen) and the objects themselves tend to have little or no depth. This means that watching a soccer game (football to the rest of the world) results in cardboard cutouts running around the field. I find that I prefer even this flawed 3D over 2D, because it helps me see the relative position of the players much better, and I can better judge the ball's position across the width of the field. YMMV, but at this point, I would hesitate to recommend that you get a 3D set with the expectation that you'll watch a lot of auto-converted 2D content.

Alfred Poor
HDTV Almanac

Re:Related topic ...just

[giuda]

I have a Samsung 3D LED (series 7000) which does 2D -> 3D conversion. I was skeptical at first but the conversion works surprisingly well. It works better on HD content (watching F1 or Soccer with it is awesome), but it works on SD content too. I think it uses as 3D cues the blurring of the off focus images and some parallax analysys. Try it in a store, it may work for you too.

picture in picture

[sixsixtysix]

when will i be able to use any input for picture in picture overlay? it shouldn't be that hard to do.

Glassless with Kinect

[Anonymous Coward]

The near future ot the best 3D experience is absolutely glassLESS, probably thanks to the ability of KINECT conected to your television to recognize where your eyes are and adjusting the TV's cristals to match with the viewers.

Worst video streaming ever

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't mind watching this but it just stutters, stops and resets constantly, on a 30 Mb/sec cable connect. Vimeo, YouTube, Vudu, Hulu, Netflix, no problem. Ooyala? Worthless.

Ray Soneira on 2D and 3D, active vs. passive

[AlfredPoor]

Uttbuggly, thanks for the question. There's a lot of information (and misinformation) flying around about the relative merits of passive and active glasses. Personally, I don't think that the interleaved issue of passive displays is important; 1080i is also interleaved, and our brains appear to stitch the images together without losing apparent resolution.

But on this subject, I will defer to Dr. Raymond Soneira of DisplayMate. Ray is a "display expert's display expert" and an uncurable empiricist. There's never been a display industry technology assumption that he has not challenged in his labs. And he performed an exhaustive series of real world tests on a set of passive and active 3D sets which he has published -- for free -- on his website at http://www.displaymate.com/3D_TV_ShootOut_1.htm. I recommend that anyone curious about this issue read Ray's report thoroughly. One of his surprising results was that small details -- such as text -- are actually much clearer on a passive set than an active one. This runs counter to the "lost resolution" argument, which is why I love empirical results (and why it's a good thing that I went into computer and display technology instead of high explosives).

And yes, he address the question of brightness specifically in his tests and his report. Comparing the sets in 2D and 3D modes, you do lose lots of light. (This is a big problem for 3D cinema as well.) You start off by losing half the light right off the bat, and then you can lose more depending on the characteristics of the glasses being used. But according to Ray's tests, you lose much more with active than you do with passive, and he explains why that is so.

Alfred Poor
HDTV Almanac

4K on your desktop

[AlfredPoor]

Strack, you get close to that today for less than you might expect. Four inexpensive 20-inch 1080p TVs on a single stand will give you the resolution you seek at much less than the cost of a 40-inch 4K display. Personally, I use a dual monitor setup even though I have a four-monitor stand on hand, and I find that it is plenty of screen real estate for my needs.

Alfred Poor
HDTV Almanac

Re:I've noticed a lot of advertisements lately.

[Anonymous Coward]

Editors appear to be on a power trip in this article, downmodding anything even remotely critical...

BAD VIDEO

[Anonymous Coward]

next time you make a video

write down lines of specific information
don't hold us long thinkin, remembeirng and talking like if you were talking to your nieghborg. learn to
make information consice, solid, to the point, no bs, no 17 mins to say something that could be said in 4 mins.

have more respect for peoples times.

thank you.

PS: try some pictures instead of your face

glasses

[alienzed]

nobody's going to be wearing glasses. Nobody's going to have an extra 5 pairs for their friends coming over for games, they'll break, they'll get lost, etc... 3D with glasses is DOA and my guess is this is probably the main reason why movies in the theatre are still mainly 2D. Glasses are gimmicky, people hate them. I think some people can stand them for special occasions but for long term use, no, just no.

TV ahead...

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy speaking about HD and 3D and...
in a small and poor low definition video... hum hum...

great hdtv from sammy

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a really awesome tv. i own it and could not be happier!!
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0071O4ETQ