3d tv

Status
Not open for further replies.

mac

Member
Joined
15 Dec 2010
Messages
429
Been in supermarket and seen a 3d tv very cheap,do you have to pay for 3d or are any channels free?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
I remember the BBC doing 3D for Comic Relief with an analogue signal and spectacles, although I'm not quite sure how it worked, especially since the normal picture was visible with the naked eye. I looked it up and found out that it is something called the Pulfrich Effect, but the explanation just left me even more puzzled.
 

starrymarkb

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2009
Messages
5,986
Location
Exeter
The BBC have broadcast Wimbledon Finals in 3D on FreeviewHD (try saying that in a hurry)

I don't get the fuss about 3D, I found it off putting in the cinema and ended up with a headache.

The £40 a pair glasses are probably Active Shutter, each lens is a LCD that turns black 100 times a second, they have a receiver built in to sync with the TV.
 

mac

Member
Joined
15 Dec 2010
Messages
429
I have a 3D tele...
I hardly use it in 3D mode and I aint paying anymore bloody money to sky for a poxy 3D channel!!!
Just out of curiosity but what make/model was it?
It was sainsbury's own make,42 inch HD 3D for £329.I wondered if it might be worth a go i would never spend thousands on a tv but after reading above link im not spending £65 a month to sky to get it.
 

Michael.Y

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2011
Messages
1,416
With the 1993 experiment, they came free with the Radio Times.
And/or you could get them in WHSmiths. I insisted on a pair of stripy ones!

As for 3D TV, it will never become viable until you can watch it without wearing glasses. As a natural spectacle wearer myself, it's bloody hard wearing ANOTHER pair above my current ones!
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,397
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
As for 3D TV, it will never become viable until you can watch it without wearing glasses. As a natural spectacle wearer myself, it's bloody hard wearing ANOTHER pair above my current ones!
I'm with you there, but isn't there a bigger problem?

I can't recall much that the TV broadcasters transmit that merits watching in 1D, 2D or any D.



Is there?
 

gnolife

Established Member
Joined
4 Nov 2010
Messages
1,728
Location
Johnstone
I'm with you there, but isn't there a bigger problem?

I can't recall much that the TV broadcasters transmit that merits watching in 1D, 2D or any D.



Is there?
1D? wouldn't that just be a line. I can see why there wouldn't be anything worth watcching in that case :D
 

The Informer

Member
Joined
2 May 2011
Messages
344
Location
Roy's Rolls Cafe
3D tv without glasses has been developed but everything is drip fed to us. I have an AV reciever capable of displaying HD content in 4320p! But I can't experience it because there is no TV currently on the market. 1080p full HD?? Drip fed again more like!!!
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,493
Location
UK
As for 3D TV, it will never become viable until you can watch it without wearing glasses. As a natural spectacle wearer myself, it's bloody hard wearing ANOTHER pair above my current ones!
The passive sets, which require very cheap glasses, are okay if you don't want to worry about some expensive glasses you might break or forget to charge.

The sets without the need for glasses require you to sit very still, and can still cause problems based on the distance you need to be from the screen. Look at one of the 3D enabled mobile phones from LG and HTC, or Nintendo's 3DS. The problem here is the human eye to a degree, so it's not as if someone will magically fix things... at least not cheaply and not necessarily with lots of people watching the same screen (assuming you had a system where the set could adjust dynamically to your position/movement).

If you get a new TV, chances are it will have 3D. If so, you can use it if you want. I wouldn't buy a 3D TV for the sake of it (yet I do enjoy watching 3D films in a cinema, especially as dark rooms mean less strain on the eyes than your average living room).

3D tv without glasses has been developed but everything is drip fed to us. I have an AV reciever capable of displaying HD content in 4320p! But I can't experience it because there is no TV currently on the market. 1080p full HD?? Drip fed again more like!!!
4K HD is coming, but it's a BIG issue for broadcasters and content producers. That's an awful lot of data to store, transmit, edit etc.

We're now seeing a move towards streaming content over broadband. I am not sure what the average speed is in the UK, but I get 5-6Mbps. When I get FTTC broadband soon, it may rise to 100 megabits. Even then, is that enough for super/ultra HD?

My phone can capture 1080p video at 20Mbps! I'd hate to imagine what a high bitrate 4K HD video would run to.

Yes, we're drip fed new technology but there is a reason, rather than a big conspiracy. In most cases, anyway. ;)
 
Last edited:

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,483
Location
Birmingham
It's just a shame the quality of the content is not improving together with the technical stats. We've started on the path of having better graphics but at the expense of plot and enjoyability across all media.

We may have HDTV but at the same time we're stuck with programs like Bargain Hunt and Eastenders in HD.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Plus of course the drip feed of new technology means that certain people won't understand the terminology making it easier to confuse. For example a Megabit vs a Megabyte (and less concious the difference between Megabyte and Mebibit)

Broadband speeds need to be more honest about average speeds instead of the vague up to which next to nobody gets.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,493
Location
UK
Broadband speeds are now advertised in a more honest way, hence you rarely see huge figures unless such speeds are almost guaranteed (to a degree, a fibre connection should get you a minimum speed that can be stated without fear of being done for false advertising).

I agree about content though. I'm rather sick of watching some new American (or British to a lesser degree) series or film where half of it is CGI - or almost all of it. And I speak as someone who was fascinated by CGI and wanted to go into that as a career when I left school (well, I wanted to but never did anything to make it happen!).

I saw the stuff Industrial Light and Magic was doing and thought 'wow'. Now it's often 'meh' and special effects don't suddenly make a programme worth watching.. but it impresses some people obviously as the studios can churn out this stuff in minutes it seems these days.

There's only so much we can do before it's all re-doing the same thing over and over. There's probably no special effect that can't be done now, so going to the cinema to be wowed by special effects isn't going to be enough. Hopefully this will mean storylines have to improve.
 

Clip

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,616
I cant generally deal with 3D - does me head in at the pictures sometimes but Mrs Clip has been informed that if Santa does not bring him one of the new Samsung smart TVs(the 55" one) for christmas then she will be spending a few nights in the manger(shed) as punishment.


Well at least the shed has heating.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,493
Location
UK
My latest project is heading up a new site for Smart TV. Not launched yet (lots of content to be added yet) but please do have a look; www.smarttvradar.com

Samsung is leading the way Smart TV wise (and Smart TV should have a good future, more so than 3D).
 

Deerfold

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
10,553
Location
Yorkshire
I'm with you there, but isn't there a bigger problem?

I can't recall much that the TV broadcasters transmit that merits watching in 1D, 2D or any D.



Is there?
I'd say there's good TV out there. But no more and probably less than when we just had 4 channels.

It's just very hard to find any of it in amongst the hundreds of channels of dross.
 

Butts

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
9,233
Is the 3D "experience" on TV the same as at the cinema ?

Personally I don't like 3D Films at the Cinema it's just a novelty. Also you have to pay extra - is it more expensive to film things in 3D ?

Seems like a money making racket to me :lol:
 

PaxVobiscum

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2012
Messages
2,369
Location
Glasgow
Samsung is leading the way Smart TV wise (and Smart TV should have a good future, more so than 3D).
I bought a Samsung smart TV for the picture quality and the ability to calibrate the colours without needing access of the factory menus. It has not disappointed me as a TV and those who have been bothered to watch 3D stuff on it have been duly impressed.

BUT :D
I would have to say that I find my Samsung smart TVs anything but "smart." Even with a fast broadband connection, browsing using the supplied remote is an incredibly frustrating experience. It is somewhat better using the iPhone Samsung Remote app. but would be much improved with a keyboard.

The Samsung apps themselves are very unrefined and clunky compared to the Apple apps. For example BBC iPlayer has a very small number of volume increments; the first being too quiet for any of us to hear and the second being too loud much of the time. Most of the other apps have been deleted where possible. I do keep checking to see if there are any new ones worth having but so far (8 months) I haven't seen any.

The main logic panel needed to be replaced after 5 months when it failed - neither John Lewis or Samsung support deserve any medals for their customer service. When the new part was eventually fitted (my diagnosis was proved correct) none of the recordings previously made could be played as the PVR app thought that it was a different TV and couldn't decrypt.

I can't honestly recommend a buying smart TV.
 

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,483
Location
Birmingham
I bought a Samsung smart TV for the picture quality and the ability to calibrate the colours without needing access of the factory menus. It has not disappointed me as a TV and those who have been bothered to watch 3D stuff on it have been duly impressed.

BUT :D
I would have to say that I find my Samsung smart TVs anything but "smart." Even with a fast broadband connection, browsing using the supplied remote is an incredibly frustrating experience. It is somewhat better using the iPhone Samsung Remote app. but would be much improved with a keyboard.

The Samsung apps themselves are very unrefined and clunky compared to the Apple apps. For example BBC iPlayer has a very small number of volume increments; the first being too quiet for any of us to hear and the second being too loud much of the time. Most of the other apps have been deleted where possible. I do keep checking to see if there are any new ones worth having but so far (8 months) I haven't seen any.

The main logic panel needed to be replaced after 5 months when it failed - neither John Lewis or Samsung support deserve any medals for their customer service. When the new part was eventually fitted (my diagnosis was proved correct) none of the recordings previously made could be played as the PVR app thought that it was a different TV and couldn't decrypt.

I can't honestly recommend a buying smart TV.
I'd be more concerned about what data they're sending back to HQ and what updates they push.

Seems a bit odd to compare a full size TV to what I presume to be a tablet. Is the Samsung using a version of android? Sometimes it's because app developers simply can't be arsed with anything other than iPhone (look at the BBC and how pro-Apple they are)
 

Deerfold

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
10,553
Location
Yorkshire
I'd be more concerned about what data they're sending back to HQ and what updates they push.

Seems a bit odd to compare a full size TV to what I presume to be a tablet. Is the Samsung using a version of android? Sometimes it's because app developers simply can't be arsed with anything other than iPhone (look at the BBC and how pro-Apple they are)
A tablet?

No, smart TVs are usually huge.

The BBC have a decent iPlayer for the Wii.
 

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,483
Location
Birmingham
A tablet?

No, smart TVs are usually huge.

The BBC have a decent iPlayer for the Wii.
Yeah I know, the post I quoted seems to be comparing Smart TV apps (Samsung) to what I assume are tablet apps (Apple).

I've never used the wii app although it's rare I've used iPlayer full stop :D
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,493
Location
UK
Sometimes it's because app developers simply can't be arsed with anything other than iPhone (look at the BBC and how pro-Apple they are)
That's changing, given the fact that there are 1m Android devices activated every single day. LG and Sony are adopting Android (well, Google TV) for new televisions and others will no doubt follow.

The BBC has supported most platforms, but do tend to go with Apple first. Yes, they are a bit Apple-biased, but it's not surprising. Go to a BBC building and you'll find most staff have an iPhone. In fact, most people working in the media have an iPhone - and most journalists use a MacBook or iPad.

I don't use an iPhone (much prefer Android for its openness) but I do use an iMac and MacBook Air for work! I also own an Apple TV (but this was purchased primarily for the new site I am managing).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top