03-01-2012 8:26 PM
03-02-2012 4:22 AM
Bravo SJ. I agree 100% with your post and I personally can't wait for this 3D fad to go away.....again. Very few movies are shot in 3D which is the only way to truly get the full experience. Most are shot in 2D and converted. Not worth it. My wife gets head aches watching 3D so we don't go to the movies to see 3D and I haven't been impressed with them and IMO they aren't worth the extra money. I have also posted enough links proving that 3D is a passing fad.
03-02-2012 2:36 PM
I'm hoping 3D will not be a part of our life in the near future. I don't want to have to purchase a 3D HDTV and a 3D Blu-ray DVD player if most of the channels start broadcasing in 3D. I already put a lot of money down on an HDTV and a Blu-ray DVD player three years ago, I don't want to upgrade again soon if ever.
04-20-2012 7:03 AM
I probably am not as informed as some and more informed than some here when it comes to parts, but it is my understanding that the 2D viewing on a TV that is equipped with 3D is frequently better than a 2D only TV cause it has better processing, frequently has a faster refresh rate, contrast and the like. We bought a 55" Samsung 7050 from costco, and I can tell you that next to all the other TV's there, the 2D picture was just better, clearer, and sharper. I have yet to experiment much with 3D, other than turning on the 2D to 3D function for a minute or two, which I thought was cool cause it added a small amount of depth. Honestly the glasses it came with are very comfortable and light, definitely more so than the ones they give you in the theaters. As far as passive vs active, I would think active is better since the passive looses resolution from the TV regardless of the resolution of input. I will definitely be checking out the 3D on demand soon, and will invest in a 3D blu-ray player when I find a good deal on one. But I would love to see 3D programming improve. With the rate resolution and quality has improved over the past 12 years from analog CRT to digital CRT and the levels of HD, and the broadcast world being about 1 step behind the whole time, I would love a good in home 3D experience as the broadcast market advances!
Oh and I chose A as well, can't wait for 6 feeds into the house rather than our current 4, and more HD feeds, we frequently run into conflicts with several family members watching shows and recording shows.
06-14-2013 12:07 AM - edited 06-14-2013 12:07 AM
Here's an Associated Press article on the death of ESPN 3D. The article mentions that ultrahigh definition TVs might have a better chance.
03-19-2014 10:42 AM - edited 03-19-2014 10:45 AM
@SomeJoe7777 YOU call the person 'One Post Wonder' and uninformed. You come across as a self-proclaimed expert, well, the ones here that are actually educated on the subject know how much you lack in expertise. I would take it step by step, but you wouldn't believe me anyway since you have a vast amount of knowledge on the subject.
Just for kicks, go to YouTube on a good 3D TV, search for Extreme 3d, and ruin everything you know. Then, switch to 2D HD mode, and watch something in normal HD and tell me 2D on a 3D TV is an inferior picture. Of course, you really can't share with a very opinionated person.
03-19-2014 10:54 AM
Uhhhhhh....you do realize the post you take issue with is a year old, right? And as far as I can tell, a lot of what Somejoe said has come to fruition.
Did you buy a 3D TV and now you're bitter that programming has slowed to a trickle?
03-19-2014 1:43 PM
Considering SomeJoe's profession, he probably knows more about this than just about everyone on these forums, including the AT&T employees. You readily admit your an opinionated person, so again, it's your opinion that 2D on a 3D tv is better. The masses disagree with you. 3D tvs are a dying fad. Even makers of TV agree.
03-19-2014 2:46 PM - edited 03-19-2014 2:49 PM
The interesting part that you must remember that the 'masses' you speak of that disagree, have NEVER owned a 3D TV. And a good deal of 3D TV owners haven't purchased a 3D player yet. This is probably due to the high prices of 3D BLU RAY players, even though Sams Club has a Sony player that is very nice for only $78. So, it's easy to be an authority if you have never owned one. I own one, and I'm still not an authority, nor do I try to come across as one. Just though I'd clear that up. I just find it strange that all the people that bash things on forums usually have never owned the product they are bashing. I'm no opinionated except for what I actually own compared to the HDTV that I replaced. And yes, if you call me opinionated for making a statement to someone that starts out bashing someone by calling them 'One Post Wonder' in the first line...... well you stated your opion about me. So be it.
03-19-2014 4:02 PM
I'd never watch 3D because I ain't wearing the glasses.
03-19-2014 6:23 PM
You know why they don't have a 3D tv because the don't WANT one. I have had several chances to purchase one, but couldn't stand the picture quality on non-3D programming. Sam's club, Costco, Target, it doesn't matter, I bought a 60" tv recently and made sure it was one WITHOUT 3D as have most people who were looking at the time. Very few 3D movies are worth watching in 3D even in the theater and certainly not worth the extra money that they charge. Avatar and Tron2 were filmed in 3D and they weren't bad, but still not worth the money. You can tout 3D all you want, facts don't lie and 3D will be allowed to go away.
03-19-2014 7:14 PM
Someday, when 3D TV is mentioned, we will look back and put it in the same category as 8 track and VHS tapes.
"Hey, remember when they tried 3D TV but no one wanted to wear those dumb glasses?"
03-19-2014 7:58 PM - edited 03-19-2014 8:01 PM
For many people, trying to view the 3D effects causes headaches and/or nausea.
This attempt at 3D technology is dead. Until the technology vastly improves for another try, I think we're just going to see more and more 2D pixels.
And to the poster attacking SomeJoe7777: He posted factual information to support his assertions, detailing why he said 3D had less picture information, etc. I challenge you to debunk his assertions with actual research of your own.
04-10-2014 3:49 AM
Super High Def is is the next big thing 3D TV's bombed out i know movie theaters still do 3D that were it should be IMO .
I wouldn't count on that. Most networks have no plan to convert to UHD/4K due to it being way to expensive. An article from back in March says that ABC has no plans to change and stated they just finished converting some of their channels to HD.