[Las Vegas Dave]

HDTV pings!

Interested in the HDTV ping list?
Please Freepmail me (freepmail works best) if you would like your name added to the HDTV ping list,
(approximately 375+ freepers are currently on the HDTV ping list).
The pinged subjects can be HDTV technology, satellite, cable, OTA HD reception (Over The Air with roof top or indoor antennas), Broadcast specials, Sports, Blu Ray/HDDVD, and any and all subjects relating to HDTV.

Note: if you search Freerepublic using the keyword "HDTV”, you will find most of the past HDTV postings.

LasVegasDave.

[jmcenanly]

When we eventually do get glasses-free 3d, the first sets will probably have a small, grainy, flickering image.

[norwaypinesavage]

I only had to watch 3D TV once, and that just for 5 minutes, before deciding I would never own a set, even if it were free.

[RayChuang88]

Frankly, the big push now is for bigger screen sizes in the 55” and bigger range. Why? Because TV set manufacturers can still make a profit on the bigger screen sizes. Why do you think the first AMOLED TV sets coming on the market are around 55” in size, even with the US$8,000 price tag?

[wita]

Can’t remember when the first 3D rush began, maybe the late fifties? It was a bust then in theaters. Not much changed in the intervening years. How many arrows headed straight for you is one person good for?

[TomGuy]

The movie industry tried to resurrect 3-D movies in the early 80’s (IIRC).

The attempt flopped.

When 3-D TVs started hitting the market a couple of years ago, many predicted the effort would be another flop.

[Sans-Culotte]

When I upgraded out TV earlier this year, I went from a 62" 720P DLP to a 60" LCD LED 1080P TV with active 3D. I was not particularly interested in 3D; but did not want to regret not having it down the road, particularly as more "golden age" 3D films from the 50's are released.

So far, I'm not blown away by it. For one thing, our mind "sees" 3D in a properly composed 2d image; otherwise there would be no sense of depth is a movie or TV show. The new Blu-ray of Lawrence of Arabia looks so sharp, and its visuals are so well composed that it practically looks 3D to me. Most of the 3D Blu-rays I've watched simply look like different flat images interspersed throughout the picture. The objects themselves do not have depth; bu their layer has depth from other layers. I find this distracting, as it seems to detract from the 3D realism I would have gotten with a normal 2D image.

Many, if not most of today'sD films are conversions which are not actually shot with stereoscopic equipment. From what I hear, these are the ones that have the "View master effect" I alluded to above. I would like to see more 3D with "in your face" effects like the 3D movies from the 50's. Otherwise, what's the point? It is wearying to wear the 3D glasses over my regular glasses (which hurts the bridge of my nose after awhile), and the effect grows less noticeable as a film progresses. I just received the Universal Monster film box set, which includes the 3D version of Creature From the Black Lagoon. I have not had time to watch it, but reviews say it is full of in-your-face 3D stuff. For a B-grade horror movie, I suppose 3D has its place. Otherwise, I'm not real excited about it. However, I love the 2D picture on my 1080P set. Films like Ben-Hur are simply amazing in HD.

[Gay State Conservative]

I’m absolutely satisfied,thrilled in fact,with my Sony 46XBR8 and PS3.The 3D demo I saw at the Sony Store recently left me utterly underwhelmed.