|
|
Post by Slinger on Jan 9, 2015 0:21:41 GMT
Does anyone have any opinions on 3D telly? We recently watched our first 3D Blu-ray via the new T.V. (it was the latest incarnation of the Star Trek franchise) and I was quietly impressed, and more importantly, so was the missus.  To be honest I was half expecting it to be a total gimmick for 90% of the film and only come into it's own during certain set-pieces. Surprisingly, to me at least, the 3D added to my enjoyment throughout rather than being something obviously "tacked on" that I had to endure so that a few quid could be added to the price of the disk. I know one film isn't really enough for me to form a solid opinion, but so far, so good. We've got Life of Pi next (the wife's choice this time) and hopefully it'll be just as successful. I certainly didn't choose the new telly because it was 3D enabled, but I'm quite glad it is now. I certainly won't be buying the 3D version of every film where it's available, just like I won't be buying disks simply because they are in 3D, but the option is there and I'm glad of it. So, any opinions out there, pro or con 3D T.V? |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Jan 9, 2015 0:27:28 GMT
I don't really have any experience with which to form an opinion, but I suppose my expectations would be similar to what yours were before you tried it. But then, we don't put too much store in TV of film image quality in this house - it's not that long since we were using a b&w portable!
|
|
|
|
Post by canetoad on Jan 9, 2015 4:12:28 GMT
For 3D to work properly you have to feel you are in the picture. For me this is only possible when you are in front of a large screen (cinema) and doesn't work so well on a small screen. I have a 3D TV but have no interest in using the facility.
|
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Jan 9, 2015 7:59:23 GMT
Having lost the sight in my right eye in a badminton accident, the issue is entirely academic for me. The fully sighted members of my family tried it once and showed no interest. Regardless of my handicap, I understand it is a dead duck - 1 sky channel, low volume sales of bluray, it looks destined to go the way of betamax when the new very high resolution TV's become commonplace. I think 3D is one of those innovations that will be passed over for ultra high definition.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2015 8:07:25 GMT
Another helpful soul here. Don't have a TV and am quite happy watching films on the computer monitor  It does sound a bit of a gimmick though, a bit like all the surround sound attempts over the years. However, not having experienced it, I guess its down to if you like it or not. As you already have the facility, its not as if you have to make a purchasing decision. |
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Jan 9, 2015 8:25:44 GMT
Thought they just stopped making them as it didn't go well.
I'm a very late TV tech adopter, still with CRT.
I assumed 3D would become the norm.. Looks like the glasses put people right off, but there was a tech that didn't need them
Did you have to wear glasses ?
Does normal stuff look ok ?
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 9, 2015 15:22:03 GMT
I really don't like 3D or 3D TVs. it's all gimmicky to me and adds nothing to my enjoyment of a film. Call me grumpy over it!
However, where 3D leaves me cold 4K excites me with clarity and detail so good that you think you're looking out of your window. Count me in as soon as broadcasts start.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slinger on Jan 11, 2015 0:05:05 GMT
Looks like it's just me then. I'm obviously as easily amused as my missus claims.  |
|
|
|
Post by canetoad on Jan 11, 2015 3:02:55 GMT
...and that's not a bad thing at all!  |
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Jan 11, 2015 10:21:42 GMT
I saw some a few years ago when my niece and her hubby were early adopters.
He was as pleased as punch with it, but I thought it was awful and just a gimmick.
Amongst other things, I recall seeing some football in 3D there - it looked to me just like cardboard cut outs moving around.
Not impressed to say the least, and I was wanting to like it, but it has probably come along in leaps and bounds since then.
I should try again sometime - but will probably wait for my current plasma screen to expire.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 11, 2015 13:34:22 GMT
It would be mad to buy anything other than a 4K set now. The benefit is that most 4K TVs do 3D so you can experiment. There's a new LG that looks superb and only requires passive glasses, like cinema ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slinger on Jan 11, 2015 16:30:26 GMT
...There's a new LG that looks superb and only requires passive glasses, like cinema ones. It was an LG that we bought. LG 55UB850V |
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Jan 11, 2015 17:32:45 GMT
Ooh Martin, moving onto 4k.
Do you have a stand for your crappy old Panasonic then ?
Give you a tenner for it
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 11, 2015 18:11:23 GMT
It was an LG that we bought. Your next task is to find some 4K material for it. |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 11, 2015 18:11:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Jan 11, 2015 21:37:33 GMT
Ok you forced my hand
£15 !
|
|
|
|
Post by Slinger on Jan 12, 2015 0:05:54 GMT
It was an LG that we bought. Your next task is to find some 4K material for it. That is of course the current problem. I think the only (supposedly) 4K content regularly available in the U.K. at the moment is from Netflix, and that's so compressed it makes a mockery of the 4k label. Also, to quote an article in Forbes"First, Netflix requires a consistent minimum of 15Mbps of broadband speed for its 4K streams to work, which is well beyond the broadband infrastructure available in many parts of the (even technically developed) world. Second, if millions of us start streaming 4K the sheer quantities of data involved will likely bring many ISPs to their knees."
Oh, and that 15Mbps is with the heavy compression. There's some demo content on YouTube apparently, and I heard that they're quoting 25Mbps to view it properly. HEVC may solve some of the problems, but even so serving 4K to the general public at the same level as we currently enjoy "normal" video hits barriers left, right, and centre. There's also the financial side of things to consider. If you're really interested there's a good article HERE but basically it will cost content providers much more to encode, store, and deliver it to the point where it may not be possible for them to monetize their streams where they rely on advertising to support them. Lastly, let me leave you with these figures, courtesy of Ericsson :- The baseband (uncompressed) video bitrate of True 4K UHDTV equates to approximately 12 gigabits per second (Gbps). In comparison, uncompressed 720p and 1080i HDTV requires 1.5 Gbps, while “full” HDTV (1080p60/50) requires 3 Gbps. There is already, what is known as a “bandwidth crunch” with current HDTV services and so the need for four to eight times the bandwidth over HDTV to deliver uncompressed 4K UHDTV services is problematic. The highest bitrate standardized single-link professional video interface available today is 3Gbps and four of these are needed to be linked together in order to carry a single live uncompressed True 4K UHDTV signal.I don't think we'll be turning on our 4K tellies and seeing 4K content any time soon. |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 12, 2015 6:40:55 GMT
I agree. My best hope is that Sky start broadcasting 4K on one or two channels. They will, of course, charge for it but then that's how HD started.
Secondly will be the successor to Blu-ray that will allow us to buy 4K films. Now that could arrive a lot sooner.
|
|
To be honest I was half expecting it to be a total gimmick for 90% of the film and only come into it's own during certain set-pieces. Surprisingly, to me at least, the 3D added to my enjoyment throughout rather than being something obviously "tacked on" that I had to endure so that a few quid could be added to the price of the disk. I know one film isn't really enough for me to form a solid opinion, but so far, so good. We've got Life of Pi next (the wife's choice this time) and hopefully it'll be just as successful. I certainly didn't choose the new telly because it was 3D enabled, but I'm quite glad it is now. I certainly won't be buying the 3D version of every film where it's available, just like I won't be buying disks simply because they are in 3D, but the option is there and I'm glad of it.
