3D TV a huge waste of time
The content sucks and the TVs that have it need those horrible 3D glasses to watch it. I have a friend that checked it out because the glasses came with his new HDTV. He watched ESPN3D on Comcast and watching it can bring on nausea and you need to be right in front of the TV for it to be acceptable.
Senate - get off your butts and actually create a budget that has spending cuts 3x the amount of tax increases like you promised.
I have to disagree with you, have you tried passive 3D, honestly Vizio seems to have best passive 3DTVs, I haven't seen anything that compares to Vizio so far. And you don't have to sit directly in front if it either, you can sit on the far sides and still have the 3D effect. Also the passive 3D glasses are your standard real D 3D or the IMAX 3D kind. The active glasses are the "horrible" ones.
Passive 3D has been a very pleasant experience at my house, I can only assume its because of the TV.
Try out both active and passive systems and then decide if its worth it. I'm willing to bet that passive 3D will not disappoint you because everyone who has visited my house and had the 3D experience always asks says the same question "How come it doesn't flicker? and its so smooth and bright."
I have a Mitsubishi DLP that uses BT active glasses and an LG LED LCD that uses passive glasses. For me, the active glasses have been more enjoyable than the passive glasses. I get no ghosting from my Active glasses like I see from the passive glasses. And the Active glasses have been less fatiguing than the passive ones.
Plus with the DLp set I can move anywhere in the room and the 3D looks great and no ghosting. Even from up close only a few feet away. While the LG with passive, if you move off center you need to adjust the 3D to your possition for it to look correctly or you see a bunch of ghosting. And you need to be at least six feet away from the screen with the Passive 3D.
|reply to FFH5 |
Well of course he had a bad experience if he was using ESPN 3D as a good example of the technology.
ESPN 3D is fucking dogshit.
It's only 720p, which is absolutely ridiculous for 3D. This means that two video frames must be packed into a 1280x720 space. ESPN 3D uses horizontal side-by-side technology, so it gives the video an effective resolution of 1280x360, or 460,800 pixels. That's barely better than SD, which is 345,600 pixels.
Discovery Communications is actually competent and uses 1080i for 3net. As a result the picture is much higher resolution than ESPN 3D.