You're forgetting one thing, the average slashdoter would complain they weren't getting enough value with the $0.99 app and would either pirate it or complain loudly over the Internet about it on some forum.
Dying? WebOS was just released last summer and quite frankly it's a great Linux based system. Much better than Android and competitive with the iPhone. Unfortunately it needs more apps, but with access to the native hardware now, I believe it will surpass Android in useful apps.
Where do you live? Under a cave? I get 1080p signals to my home... Not to mention my Blu-Ray player which outputs 1080p and my PC which runs at a 1920x1200 resolution.
I think I need to make my distinction clearer here. I'm referring to personal computers for shutter glasses. For Home TVs I think Polarized lenses are the best simply because of cost.
For TVs, yes it is the best when it comes out at a reasonable price. Personally, I don't think it will be cheap anytime soon due to the added complexity.
However, I still think shutter glasses are the best for PCs simply because the addition of the Zscreen will result in a decrease of contrast and brightness.
I am claiming that a small oligopoly of companies would rather maintain artificially high prices through ridiculous and undesired 'features' than let the prices fall naturally
Those features aren't forced onto consumers however, again I have to point out that one can purchase a 45"+ TV for less than $700 these days, and the advent of 3D TVs will not increase the prices of those cheaper sets anytime soon. These features aren't added to the exclusion of cheaper lower cost TVs, if there is a market that desires featureless TVs, then cheap featureless TVs will be made.
You see, there is no profit in providing commodities. There are nice, high profits in snaring the 'early adopters' of technologies. And so, companies will not allow TVs to become commodity items, and they will do so by adding a never ending stream of useless and undesirable features, and then using the black magic propaganda of marketing to convince people they want what they don't actually want.
I don't believe that is the case, I believe it's more of an issue of saturating a market with a product. Once a market becomes saturated, a new reason is required to drive growth in that industry. For example, once everyone has a 55" 1080p HDTV, what happens to those companies that produce the TVs? They are required to downsize and reduce operations significantly so that they only produce enough TVs to replace broken sets. When they do that, people get laid off and the economy suffers as a result. Companies are constantly looking for new avenues of growth in order to maintain a high level of manufacturing.
How can you say that some people have no meaningful work to perform when people the world over have no homes, no food, and no clean water? This is a serious disconnect in our economic system. By claiming that there is no meaningful work for some to perform, you are claiming that we have no hunger or homelessness and that is clearly untrue.
I'm not particularly in the mood to argue this question, but I will state that I did not claim there was no hunger or homelessness in the world. However, you do have to take into account the geopolitical distribution of where the hunger and homelessness is. In most developed western nations, hunger and homelessness are minor issues compared to countries like India or China.
Just because a manufacturer knows how to make more than one (SHOCK! AWE!) doesn't mean that multiple manufacturers make it.
Who said anything about a wide variety of manufacturers? I agree with you that there are only a handful of companies that deal with that industry. My point is that not everything that comes from one manufacturer is the same quality or has the same cost associated with similar products.
Example: there are lots of parts that samsung, panasonic, sony and many other companies have an effective monopoly on. They're the only ones who make them. This isn't just an LCD thing, go look at who makes disc drive laser diodes or any other components.
What's your point? That's fairly obvious because the barrier to entry into those industries is exceptionally high.
I still don't understand your argument, it's fairly obvious that the manufacturers are trying to push these new technologies so that they can maintain higher margins. However, the margins are not significantly higher and this isn't to the exclusion of cheaper technology. 3D or no 3D, you can purchase a low cost LCD very easily these days. Adjusted for inflation the price of electronic components have gone done tremendously over the past few decades.
The point the OP was trying to make is that high end TVs are overpriced and laden with features that most of us don't want or need, just to justify the price increase. Without these continual 'improvements,' companies would not be able to justify their high margins and prices would come down more quickly.
I still don't understand. Who is forcing you to purchase these TVs with features you don't need? When I buy an LCD, be it a computer monitor or a TV I make sure it has the features I WANT and stop there. Not to mention, prices have gone down an extreme amount in the past few decades for consumer goods which is why his argument is silly.
How is it that our current economic system can not find a way to match unemployed individuals with work that needs to be done to provide even basic necessities?
Because there simply isn't meaningful work for those individuals to perform? You can only have so many people work in services... If people aren't buying goods, then goods aren't being produced and people aren't working.
Why must an economy grow to maintain it? Isn't that a bit like a cancer? Do you consider it a cancer when your appetite grows as you grow older? The world population is increasing and the economy must grow to match that.
I understand what his post is about, I was simply answering the problem stated in the article of no TVs being released that do not require glasses. His post is completely tangential to mine.
From TFS: "We're yet to see any major brand at CES pushing a 3D TV that doesn't require them. In most cases these aren't the basic Ray Ban style you might have worn to watch Avatar. In many cases they'll actually require power. For example, Sony's 3D TVs use a "frame sequential"display method, which involves active-shutter glasses that turn on and off in sync with the images. Some TVS come with the glasses and have the transmitter built in, but again, in some cases you'll need to buy the transmitter and glasses separately."
Red and Green aren't the same, they are chemically different and the prices of the consumables can affect the cost of each color.
You're delusional if you think TVs haven't changed radically in the past 30 years...
30 years ago you were lucky to have a display capable of 640x480 which is.3MP... Today you can buy a 1080p 2M display, that's a nearly 7x increase in resolution.
You are also highly delusional if you think price has remained consistent with inflation... I purchased my 30" 1920x1200 display for $350... In 1990 dollars that would be $215... You are insane if you think you could purchase a 2MP 30" Display for $215 in 1990.
Are you implying in your example that they didn't improve the antenna? Or are you trying to imply that they already had the design for an improved antenna but decided to wait to push the technology? Or are you cynically implying that they had the technology and capability to introduce the improved antenna at the same price point but decided to create an artificial barrier?
Because I would say all of that is Grade A BS spoken from someone who has no knowledge of actual engineering and product development.
Yes, there are only a handful of LCD manufacturers, one of them being Sony, LG, and Samsung... All of whom are trying to push 3D. However a clueless individual like yourself might assume that since there are only a handful of manufacturers, that every LCD that comes from these manufacturers is exactly the same. That would be a highly ignorant statement. Companies who purchase the Liquid Crystal Displays for usage in TVs for example have the choice of purchasing high quality or low quality components. Usually the components will be run through an automated QA process and the best components will be sold for the highest prices. Also, companies can ask for the components to be produced with higher quality components and tighter manufacturing tolerances.
To assume that all LCDs from one manufacturer are the same is foolish.
You know what's happened with electronics over the past 20 years? They've improved tremendously.
I don't see any manipulation unless these companies were making an a lot of money over the manufacturing cost of the sets...
Technology improves and most of the time the new technology costs more money to implement.
People need jobs and something to work on, so they spend their time improving the technology. I hardly doubt it's some grand conspiracy.
Yes the manufacturers want to push 3D as the next new thing so that they can continue to sell expensive TV sets, but it's not as if the new sets don't cost more for them to manufacture. Nor is anyone forcing you to purchase a newer TV. The OPs view is one from an individual who is ignorant of the engineering and development that goes on in the world. Not to mention the continued economic growth necessary to maintain a large economy.
Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie
on
Hot Or Not — 3D TV
·
· Score: 1
The problem is the Camera systems being used work similar to the eye, they have to focus on a specific part of the image. When you try to look at an area that is out of focus, your eyes make a futile attempt to focus the image which ends in a headache and nausea.
Basically, focus on the part of the image that's in focus.
Nvidia is adding support for 3D video/Blu-Ray for all of their GT200/300 video cards via drivers. Yes you do need a 120hz+ display, however a lot of TVs don't do true 120Hz but simply interpolate a 60Hz image twice every frame to achieve "120Hz."
Sure, but compare the price of Plasma displays now and when they were introduced, or even regular old LCD TVs... No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to buy a 3D TV, you can buy a 40-50" regular HD LCD TV for sub-$1000 these days.
Besides, I don't understand what your reply has to do with the actual technology behind 3D displays. I swear, almost every other post here on slashdot has become about how expensive something is or how it's not free or extremely cheap...
Just doesn't work... It's headache inducing and problematic with multiple viewers and viewing angles.
Don't expect it anytime soon in a practical and usable form.
3D circularly polarized projectors are probably the best usable tech as the glasses are cheap. However high refresh rate LCDs with active shutter glasses are probably the best tech for PCs.
Slashdot Mirror
You're forgetting one thing, the average slashdoter would complain they weren't getting enough value with the $0.99 app and would either pirate it or complain loudly over the Internet about it on some forum.
Dying? WebOS was just released last summer and quite frankly it's a great Linux based system. Much better than Android and competitive with the iPhone. Unfortunately it needs more apps, but with access to the native hardware now, I believe it will surpass Android in useful apps.
Right, but that's expensive!
Where do you live? Under a cave? I get 1080p signals to my home... Not to mention my Blu-Ray player which outputs 1080p and my PC which runs at a 1920x1200 resolution.
The Luddites and Cheap bastards have overtaken Slashdot in the recent year... Two groups that happen to be very vocal and annoying...
Never read The Last Question, I take it?
Nope, not worth a single flying F.
Yes, I did... =(
It happens to be a personally pet peeve of mine when someone mentions doing a 180.
I think I need to make my distinction clearer here. I'm referring to personal computers for shutter glasses. For Home TVs I think Polarized lenses are the best simply because of cost.
For TVs, yes it is the best when it comes out at a reasonable price. Personally, I don't think it will be cheap anytime soon due to the added complexity.
However, I still think shutter glasses are the best for PCs simply because the addition of the Zscreen will result in a decrease of contrast and brightness.
I am claiming that a small oligopoly of companies would rather maintain artificially high prices through ridiculous and undesired 'features' than let the prices fall naturally
Those features aren't forced onto consumers however, again I have to point out that one can purchase a 45"+ TV for less than $700 these days, and the advent of 3D TVs will not increase the prices of those cheaper sets anytime soon. These features aren't added to the exclusion of cheaper lower cost TVs, if there is a market that desires featureless TVs, then cheap featureless TVs will be made.
You see, there is no profit in providing commodities. There are nice, high profits in snaring the 'early adopters' of technologies. And so, companies will not allow TVs to become commodity items, and they will do so by adding a never ending stream of useless and undesirable features, and then using the black magic propaganda of marketing to convince people they want what they don't actually want.
I don't believe that is the case, I believe it's more of an issue of saturating a market with a product. Once a market becomes saturated, a new reason is required to drive growth in that industry. For example, once everyone has a 55" 1080p HDTV, what happens to those companies that produce the TVs? They are required to downsize and reduce operations significantly so that they only produce enough TVs to replace broken sets. When they do that, people get laid off and the economy suffers as a result. Companies are constantly looking for new avenues of growth in order to maintain a high level of manufacturing.
How can you say that some people have no meaningful work to perform when people the world over have no homes, no food, and no clean water? This is a serious disconnect in our economic system. By claiming that there is no meaningful work for some to perform, you are claiming that we have no hunger or homelessness and that is clearly untrue.
I'm not particularly in the mood to argue this question, but I will state that I did not claim there was no hunger or homelessness in the world. However, you do have to take into account the geopolitical distribution of where the hunger and homelessness is. In most developed western nations, hunger and homelessness are minor issues compared to countries like India or China.
Just because a manufacturer knows how to make more than one (SHOCK! AWE!) doesn't mean that multiple manufacturers make it.
Who said anything about a wide variety of manufacturers? I agree with you that there are only a handful of companies that deal with that industry. My point is that not everything that comes from one manufacturer is the same quality or has the same cost associated with similar products.
Example: there are lots of parts that samsung, panasonic, sony and many other companies have an effective monopoly on. They're the only ones who make them. This isn't just an LCD thing, go look at who makes disc drive laser diodes or any other components.
What's your point? That's fairly obvious because the barrier to entry into those industries is exceptionally high.
I still don't understand your argument, it's fairly obvious that the manufacturers are trying to push these new technologies so that they can maintain higher margins. However, the margins are not significantly higher and this isn't to the exclusion of cheaper technology. 3D or no 3D, you can purchase a low cost LCD very easily these days. Adjusted for inflation the price of electronic components have gone done tremendously over the past few decades.
They obviously are, maybe I should restate my question. How do you change the polarity of the image 180 degrees with a frequency of 120Hz+ in an LCD?
The point the OP was trying to make is that high end TVs are overpriced and laden with features that most of us don't want or need, just to justify the price increase. Without these continual 'improvements,' companies would not be able to justify their high margins and prices would come down more quickly.
I still don't understand. Who is forcing you to purchase these TVs with features you don't need? When I buy an LCD, be it a computer monitor or a TV I make sure it has the features I WANT and stop there. Not to mention, prices have gone down an extreme amount in the past few decades for consumer goods which is why his argument is silly.
How is it that our current economic system can not find a way to match unemployed individuals with work that needs to be done to provide even basic necessities?
Because there simply isn't meaningful work for those individuals to perform? You can only have so many people work in services... If people aren't buying goods, then goods aren't being produced and people aren't working.
Why must an economy grow to maintain it? Isn't that a bit like a cancer?
Do you consider it a cancer when your appetite grows as you grow older? The world population is increasing and the economy must grow to match that.
I understand what his post is about, I was simply answering the problem stated in the article of no TVs being released that do not require glasses. His post is completely tangential to mine.
From TFS:
"We're yet to see any major brand at CES pushing a 3D TV that doesn't require them. In most cases these aren't the basic Ray Ban style you might have worn to watch Avatar. In many cases they'll actually require power. For example, Sony's 3D TVs use a "frame sequential"display method, which involves active-shutter glasses that turn on and off in sync with the images. Some TVS come with the glasses and have the transmitter built in, but again, in some cases you'll need to buy the transmitter and glasses separately."
Red and Green aren't the same, they are chemically different and the prices of the consumables can affect the cost of each color.
You're delusional if you think TVs haven't changed radically in the past 30 years...
30 years ago you were lucky to have a display capable of 640x480 which is .3MP... Today you can buy a 1080p 2M display, that's a nearly 7x increase in resolution.
You are also highly delusional if you think price has remained consistent with inflation... I purchased my 30" 1920x1200 display for $350... In 1990 dollars that would be $215... You are insane if you think you could purchase a 2MP 30" Display for $215 in 1990.
Are you implying in your example that they didn't improve the antenna? Or are you trying to imply that they already had the design for an improved antenna but decided to wait to push the technology? Or are you cynically implying that they had the technology and capability to introduce the improved antenna at the same price point but decided to create an artificial barrier?
Because I would say all of that is Grade A BS spoken from someone who has no knowledge of actual engineering and product development.
Yes, there are only a handful of LCD manufacturers, one of them being Sony, LG, and Samsung... All of whom are trying to push 3D. However a clueless individual like yourself might assume that since there are only a handful of manufacturers, that every LCD that comes from these manufacturers is exactly the same. That would be a highly ignorant statement. Companies who purchase the Liquid Crystal Displays for usage in TVs for example have the choice of purchasing high quality or low quality components. Usually the components will be run through an automated QA process and the best components will be sold for the highest prices. Also, companies can ask for the components to be produced with higher quality components and tighter manufacturing tolerances.
To assume that all LCDs from one manufacturer are the same is foolish.
You know what's happened with electronics over the past 20 years? They've improved tremendously.
I don't see any manipulation unless these companies were making an a lot of money over the manufacturing cost of the sets...
Technology improves and most of the time the new technology costs more money to implement.
People need jobs and something to work on, so they spend their time improving the technology. I hardly doubt it's some grand conspiracy.
Yes the manufacturers want to push 3D as the next new thing so that they can continue to sell expensive TV sets, but it's not as if the new sets don't cost more for them to manufacture. Nor is anyone forcing you to purchase a newer TV. The OPs view is one from an individual who is ignorant of the engineering and development that goes on in the world. Not to mention the continued economic growth necessary to maintain a large economy.
The problem is the Camera systems being used work similar to the eye, they have to focus on a specific part of the image. When you try to look at an area that is out of focus, your eyes make a futile attempt to focus the image which ends in a headache and nausea.
Basically, focus on the part of the image that's in focus.
Nvidia is adding support for 3D video/Blu-Ray for all of their GT200/300 video cards via drivers. Yes you do need a 120hz+ display, however a lot of TVs don't do true 120Hz but simply interpolate a 60Hz image twice every frame to achieve "120Hz."
Sure, but compare the price of Plasma displays now and when they were introduced, or even regular old LCD TVs... No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to buy a 3D TV, you can buy a 40-50" regular HD LCD TV for sub-$1000 these days.
Besides, I don't understand what your reply has to do with the actual technology behind 3D displays. I swear, almost every other post here on slashdot has become about how expensive something is or how it's not free or extremely cheap...
Oh wait, I must be new here or something.
How do you polarize the image from a conventional LCD without significantly reducing contrast ratios and brightness during non 3D viewing?
Just doesn't work... It's headache inducing and problematic with multiple viewers and viewing angles.
Don't expect it anytime soon in a practical and usable form.
3D circularly polarized projectors are probably the best usable tech as the glasses are cheap. However high refresh rate LCDs with active shutter glasses are probably the best tech for PCs.
In the year 4 billion and Two
Google will have answered Man's question
And Google will say, "Let There Be Light!"
The Article mentioned using an i7 for real time video editing.
In a post slightly above this one, the OP was ranting about this Wi-Di system requiring a "Core i7 Rolls Royce Chip."