SA Footy

Westsider wrote:I will never buy a 3D TV. Stupid money making gimmick.

Wedgie wrote:I agree with Westsider, 3d tv is already on the decline, things that were shown in 3d last year haven't been since because of the ridiculous cost for nothing that is more than a gimmick.
Don't liken it to TV, liken it to smellovision.
TV was/is here to stay, 3d tv will be forgotten or laughed about in 5 years time, in fact, most laugh at it now.

Wedgie wrote:I agree with Westsider, 3d tv is already on the decline, things that were shown in 3d last year haven't been since because of the ridiculous cost for nothing that is more than a gimmick.
Don't liken it to TV, liken it to smellovision.
TV was/is here to stay, 3d tv will be forgotten or laughed about in 5 years time, in fact, most laugh at it now.

Bully wrote:just recently bought a samsung 55 inch HD/3D tv. Has anyone else purchased a 3D TV and what are their thoughts?

My thoughts are ....at the present time i dont believe its worth the money for 3D, seen as the only channel broadcast in permanet 3D is channel 201 on foxtel. Its mostly all USA collage football and a bit of tennis. I know there are 3D tvs out that you can switch a normal 2d broadcast to 3D anytime but they are around 3000 at the moment. Also getting a fair bit of ghosting watching 3D. (when i have the glasses on you see a ghost figure in the picture of characters in the distant picture). They way to fix this is to adjust the tunning of the brightness in the 3D mode, but its still visible, and is bit of a turn off for 3D at the moment. But still good to see TV in 3D tho

Your ghosting problems is that it's a active 3d tv which by next year will be old technology. Everyone will be switching to passive 3d which lg currently make, as the glasses are cheaper around 2 pairs for $10, the glasses are lighter, they don't need to be powered, and you don't have problems ghosting or the glasses flickering.
There is a 3D TV out at the moment worth about $20,000 that you dont need the glasses to wear, but who has that much to spend on Tvs

dedja wrote:LOL, the next iPad will not be 3D ...

kickinit wrote:

Wedgie wrote:I agree with Westsider, 3d tv is already on the decline, things that were shown in 3d last year haven't been since because of the ridiculous cost for nothing that is more than a gimmick.
Don't liken it to TV, liken it to smellovision.
TV was/is here to stay, 3d tv will be forgotten or laughed about in 5 years time, in fact, most laugh at it now.

According to adelaidenow they are on the decline because it cost the tv stations too much to run a 3D channel. There are currently more 3D movies being made then 2D due to rumours that the next iPad will be 3D.

Bully wrote:just recently bought a samsung 55 inch HD/3D tv. Has anyone else purchased a 3D TV and what are their thoughts?

My thoughts are ....at the present time i dont believe its worth the money for 3D, seen as the only channel broadcast in permanet 3D is channel 201 on foxtel. Its mostly all USA collage football and a bit of tennis. I know there are 3D tvs out that you can switch a normal 2d broadcast to 3D anytime but they are around 3000 at the moment. Also getting a fair bit of ghosting watching 3D. (when i have the glasses on you see a ghost figure in the picture of characters in the distant picture). They way to fix this is to adjust the tunning of the brightness in the 3D mode, but its still visible, and is bit of a turn off for 3D at the moment. But still good to see TV in 3D tho

Your ghosting problems is that it's a active 3d tv which by next year will be old technology. Everyone will be switching to passive 3d which lg currently make, as the glasses are cheaper around 2 pairs for $10, the glasses are lighter, they don't need to be powered, and you don't have problems ghosting or the glasses flickering.
There is a 3D TV out at the moment worth about $20,000 that you dont need the glasses to wear, but who has that much to spend on Tvs

kickinit wrote:According to adelaidenow they are on the decline because it cost the tv stations too much to run a 3D channel. There are currently more 3D movies being made then 2D due to rumours that the next iPad will be 3D.

Westsider wrote:

kickinit wrote:According to adelaidenow they are on the decline because it cost the tv stations too much to run a 3D channel. There are currently more 3D movies being made then 2D due to rumours that the next iPad will be 3D.

Link please. There are not more 3D movies than 2D.

And why would they change movie making to suit the ipad? LOL

kickinit wrote:

Westsider wrote:

kickinit wrote:According to adelaidenow they are on the decline because it cost the tv stations too much to run a 3D channel. There are currently more 3D movies being made then 2D due to rumours that the next iPad will be 3D.

Link please. There are not more 3D movies than 2D.

And why would they change movie making to suit the ipad? LOL

Yes you are correct there is more 2d movies then 3d but there is more 3d being made then 2d movies
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,23 ... N_oTYIM5GS
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/04/nex ... d-display/

There is one link showing how many are being made of both i'll have to do some researching to find it.

Westsider wrote:Why pay thousands of dollars for a TV that ghosts?