  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 |  3D TV a huge waste of time
--
Senate - get off your butts and actually create a budget that has spending cuts 3x the amount of tax increases like you promised.
| |
|
 | Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| Re: 3D TV a huge waste of time 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." | |
|
| |  aaronwtPremium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: 3D TV a huge waste of time 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. | |
|
| | | 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. | |
|
 VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | Shame for Google to offer the additional channel for $5
Do they not realize that the way to go about is in todays world is to simply include it on everyones bill without telling anyone and raising prices substantially on the next bill and claim that the rise in prices are for the "consumers interest"? | |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Cooler? How about cheaper? I suppose that some day, maybe 100 years from now, scientists will perfect "3D", in the form of some kind of implantable probe, that truly gives us an enveloping experience without the headaches and vertigo.
But until then, it is a complete and utter waste of time and money if you're old enough to drink.
Meanwhile, Google charges $120 a month for pay-tv.
What happened to "Don't be evil" ? | |
|
| | | Re: Cooler? How about cheaper? $120 for TV AND gig internet. Sounds like a deal. 120 won't get you much for TV+internet where I live. | |
|
| | | | Re: Cooler? How about cheaper? is that $120 a 1-2 year promo rate? Lower base price with no proms like the other guys? | |
|
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Cooler? How about cheaper? $120 flat. No promos. No gimmicks.
You're basically paying $70 for gigabit Internet, plus $50 for TV. | |
|
| | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | said by IowaResident :$120 for TV AND gig internet. Sounds like a deal. 120 won't get you much for TV+internet where I live.
Nope. Its $120 for pay-tv. They don't sell it for a penny less. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Re: Cooler? How about cheaper? He is just trolling as usual. | |
|
| | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Yeah, I read that, long ago.
It clearly says you have to pay $120/month to get their pay-tv.
Maybe you should look at it again. | |
|
| | | | | Here's what I pay:
Dish: $45/month
Cable Internet: $45/month (10/1)
Total: $90
So for basically $30 more I would get 100 times the speed download and 1000 times the speed upload with a far better channel selection.
Their gigabit service alone is $70 dollars, so the TV alone would theoretically be $50/month. Not bad.
That said, I wouldn't get gigabit (yet), because it's a bit more than I would like to pay. | |
|
| | | | | you can add extra TV Boxes for $5 each/month for 24 months. You also have the option to purchase TV boxes upfront for $120/ea.
why can't you buy the boxes on other systems and not pay high outlet / mirroring fees? | |
|
| aaronwtPremium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| said by elray:I suppose that some day, maybe 100 years from now, scientists will perfect "3D", in the form of some kind of implantable probe, that truly gives us an enveloping experience without the headaches and vertigo.
But until then, it is a complete and utter waste of time and money if you're old enough to drink.
Meanwhile, Google charges $120 a month for pay-tv.
What happened to "Don't be evil" ?
headaches and vertigo? I haven't run into anyone that has had those side effects. I know people ranging in age from 35 to 88 that have had no problem viewing 3D. | |
|
| brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Nothing to see here. Just the usual troll. | |
|
 antdudeA Ninja AntPremium,VIP
join:2001-03-25
United State
kudos:4 | Meh. 3D don't work with my old compound eyes so I wouldn't want 3D stuff. :P | |
|
| | Wish this was in Canada ! I wish this was in Canada as I would sign up immediately ! | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Millenicom
 ·AT&T Southeast
·Verizon Wireless..
| Google Fiber 3D I do not like 3D, but I believe that is because of my need for glasses and inability to wear contact lenses. Passive or active. No matter which brand, I eventually get a headache from watching more than a few minutes. But I would like getting 4K 2D video. Add in a big screen with a laser DLP front projector, and you would have a great viewing experience. | |
|
| | In a Heartbeat All that and 3D... What a deal. No provider could compete with that. Bring it on.
Now... Google is your friend.  | |
|
|
|
