PebHmong Discussion Forum
Hobbies & Interests => Computer & Technology => Topic started by: thePoster on October 25, 2011, 03:14:46 AM
-
After watching a the cheerleaders run out on the field and jump around at a football game on the 3D t.v. I'm definately going to get one.
Just gotta wait till the price comes down.
I was surprised how well the 3d technology has come. It's pretty darn awesome.
-
It will take off once the pron industy catch on.
-
I have both a 3D LED TV and a 3D blu-ray player and it IS impressive. But Eyedumb is right. The porn industry does sort of dictate what will dominate the mainstream.
-
Consumer 3D TV are at this point still a joke. Those TVs should be correctly labeled 3 Layer TV, because that's all you're getting...a wallpaper background, a couple animated cutouts in the middle, and blurry blobs that pops in your face every so often.
-
Consumer 3D TV are at this point still a joke. Those TVs should be correctly labeled 3 Layer TV, because that's all you're getting...a wallpaper background, a couple animated cutouts in the middle, and blurry blobs that pops in your face every so often.
You're wrong.
The new ones actually looks good. You have to actually wear 3d glasses, just like the ones at the movies.
-
Nah...I was exaggerating to get the point across. Point was...3DTV technology ain't there yet, not even close to theater 3D.
Last week, I've spent three hours during work lunch, checking out all the top of the line sets at Fry's and Best Buy. (I've been wanting one for a long ass time...since seeing a 3D game with active shutter glasses in 1998 at one of those computer shows.) I had an interesting debate with an actual Sony rep onsite. I pointed out the flaws of the Sony; he pointed out the flaws of the other sets. I asked why 3D objects look natural in some scenes, but flat and layered in most others. I mean, if the 3D set is capable of displaying scenes natually, why not have it natural throughout? He attribute the limitations to the large amount of data processing. My translation: stationary scenes have more depth, because all the processing power can be used to create that depth. Moving scenes are flat, because some processing power needs to be used to create motion. Who knows if this is the way it work? Do any of you guys know???
In my opinion, the best one was the LG passive 3D TV, but it looked like someone blended two CRTs together. Great picture, best depth of the bunch, good viewing angles, except up and down...but poor, screendoor-like resolution. Bikini girls of Tahiti in 3D is NICE! 2nd was the Sharp Aquos. 3rd...Sony. 4th...Panasoni c. Last...Samsung .
With that said, I ain't buying no 3DTV, especially when no-glasses-needed 3DTV is at the horizon.
-
Don't know what 3d t.v.'s you're looking at but I get to see the new stuff before they even come out and they are high def and veiwing angle is great. I put the glasses on and was wondering if I had to be stareing straight it so I tested it out and I went to the side of the screen, it's still good. Everything is in 3D, it's like you're virtually looking out a window.
But if you get a Bravia, I wouldn't even suggest getting a 3d tv becuase for some odd reason it is so sharp and crisp it is as if it's in 3d already and that those people are actually there.
-
Amazon and Newegg just had a deal that ended last night.
Buy a LG 3D TV + Xbox360 + Halo Combat Evolved Ann. and get $240 off. You can then sell the Xbox360 on ebay if you like for about $175 easily.
Lucky for me, I saw the deal last night on another forum and picked up a LG 47LW6500+Xbox360 Kinect Bundle+Halo CE game for $1206.96 out the door.
If you were to buy it today at this minute, it would cost:
TV = $1085.44
360Kinect = $299.99
Halo CE = $37.99
Total = $1423.42 (diff of $216.46)
Amazon was competing against Newegg and offer the same deal as Newegg. Both ended last night, but I still see Newegg advertising the deal.