posted
I read about this a couple months ago and thought it was pretty silly. For ESPN, maybe, because they keep getting pushed to provide better and better content, and they've invested so much in new camera technologies, so okay, I guess. But the US cable market hasn't even adopted HD yet en masse, and they're already pushing the next thing? 3D televisions are insanely expensive, and aren't even standardized yet. There are a number of different types, some that require glasses and some that don't. ESPN can afford it I guess, but Discovery, despite the fact that visually they're probably my favorite candidate, should wait.
It'll be interesting to see how this goes.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the US cable market hasn't even adopted HD yet en masse, and they're already pushing the next thing?
Have you seen a Best Buy ad lately? All they sell is televisions.
Once you have a TV in every room in your house, something needs to make you buy new TVs. They're hoping it's "3D technology." But they're wrong.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm 99+% blind in my right eye. So yeah...I don't care. Plus, who wants to wear those dorky glasses to watch tv at home?
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the US cable market hasn't even adopted HD yet en masse, and they're already pushing the next thing?
Have you seen a Best Buy ad lately? All they sell is televisions.
Once you have a TV in every room in your house, something needs to make you buy new TVs. They're hoping it's "3D technology." But they're wrong.
Yes, I know, but for a lot of people still, they're holding onto old school televisions for longer than they otherwise would have. I know that HDTVs are all that's sold now, but that doesn't mean everyone has one. Do even half of all US households have an HDTV? And how many of those houses actually have HD programming from their cable providers?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I already wear dorky glasses to watch TV at home.
Well, then for you the damage has already been done.
But seriously, that means wearing glasses over your glasses if you want to see the 3-d. That's ridiculously uncomfortable. And twice as dorky.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's the 3 GB/s ultra HD standard on the way for a few years down the line. (Because really, who doesn't need 16x the resolution of 1080p? Oh, right, those of us without 20/5 vision.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I watched that episode last night! It was so he could see the background radiation caused by crossing the Void between realities. It was how he simultaneously defeated the Cybermen and the Daleks.
If 3D glasses will let me do that, I'll keep a pair around the house. Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I won't wear glasses to watch TV. Period. I won't wear glasses in a movie theater unless my vision deteriorates a lot further.
So, until they can do this without glasses, I'll just avoid it.
And TomD hit the nail on the head as to the cause of this hysteria. It's driven primarily by retailers like BestBuy who are hoping to find a gimmick to cash in on during the downturn in the economy.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even better, some people actually can't see 3D. It's a small portion of the population, but these people do exist. It's an eye issue referred to a "stereo blindness."
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the US cable market hasn't even adopted HD yet en masse, and they're already pushing the next thing?
Have you seen a Best Buy ad lately? All they sell is televisions.
At the risk of being branded a commie pinko freak, maybe they should stop that!
A television is supposed to be a long-term purchase, like an appliance. Once you have one, you shouldn't need to buy another one for a long time. Doubly so if the last one you bought was a yard or more across from corner to corner...
I kind've feel like an outsider on this issue, but much like with cars, I just don't get the impulse that drives some people to keep getting new ones. I don't mean "this is a stupid thing to do"; I mean I genuinely don't understand it. You can go from a television the size of your fireplace to one that takes up nearly all the real estate of an entire wall. You can get higher refresh rates and higher contrast ratios so black looks less like gray and motion looks more natural (and in the case of some of Sony's televisions, you can get "TrueMotion", which in demonstrations to my eye mostly succeeds in making most movies look more like videos.) But... Why? Unless your current television is actually giving you a headache, is there a reason to keep putting out these tiny incremental increases in television quality? Is there really a large demographic that keeps ringing up high-hundred to mid-thousand dollar purchases, over and over?
...Sigh. Okay, sorry, got that off my chest. Back on to subject...
I've seen some of the 3-D technology they've offered for computers, and it's kinda neat, but it's kind've neat in the way that IMAX is kinda neat- which is to say I have no real desire or expectation to actually own such technology.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
