Why buy a 3D TV?

Forums › Home Theatre (including HTPC and EPG Collector) › Why buy a 3D TV?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Jaxson

8042 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#976939 29-Jan-2014 22:22

That game planet article came to me in an email also, but personally I think it's a fear of something new. The major complaint is around content, which is fair given no broadcaster currently offers 3D or 1080P anyway, but as Dunners mentions above, the improvement is significant and something's got to move first.

As I mentioned earlier, 1080P looks decidedly SD on a large flatscreen. I'd hazard a guess as anything 65" and above just should be 4k. That's the same pixel size/compactness as a 32" full HD set at 65" and it only gets better and more suited as you go up. I've said in the past that I think from 42" and up you have to be full HD. That suggests to me that from 80" and above you should be 4k.

Yes there is no physical content yet, nor broadcast, but there is internet content coming.
If you haven't seen it already, take a look at this:

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#976999 30-Jan-2014 07:05

Jaxson: That game planet article came to me in an email also, but personally I think it's a fear of something new. The major complaint is around content, which is fair given no broadcaster currently offers 3D or 1080P anyway, but as Dunners mentions above, the improvement is significant and something's got to move first.

As I mentioned earlier, 1080P looks decidedly SD on a large flatscreen. I'd hazard a guess as anything 65" and above just should be 4k. That's the same pixel size/compactness as a 32" full HD set at 65" and it only gets better and more suited as you go up. I've said in the past that I think from 42" and up you have to be full HD. That suggests to me that from 80" and above you should be 4k.

Yes there is no physical content yet, nor broadcast, but there is internet content coming.
If you haven't seen it already, take a look at this:

Heck, it takes an age editing and rendering 1080P home video. I'm going to need 4 times the power just to keep up!

Procrastination eventually pays off.

sidefx

3711 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#977046 30-Jan-2014 08:24

[OT] That GP article needed a graph IMO. Just how close do you sit to your TV?

I'd also be interested in a proper blind test of 4K. I've come across some in the past that put a Full HD TV next to a UHD TV and people can pick the difference, but it would seem to me that there would be more than just resolution coming into play in these tests...

"I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there." | Octopus Energy | Sharesies
- Richard Feynman

Spyware

3762 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#977052 30-Jan-2014 08:43

4K is actually designed for a max screen size of 80 to 100 inches. Full HD is designed for a max screen size of 40 to 50 inches. Note: I watch a 46" from just on 2 metres (my sweet spot being short sighted) and 4K will provide me the option to watch from further away on a larger screen and still see the same detail.

Spark Max Fibre using Mikrotik CCR1009-8G-1S-1S+, CRS125-24G-1S, Unifi UAP, U6-Pro, UAP-AC-M-Pro, Apple TV 4K (2022), Apple TV 4K (2017), iPad Air 1st gen, iPad Air 4th gen, iPhone 13, SkyNZ3151 (the white box). If it doesn't move then it's data cabled.

sidefx

3711 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#977056 30-Jan-2014 08:53

Spyware: 4K is actually designed for a max screen size of 80 to 100 inches. Full HD is designed for a max screen size of 40 to 50 inches. Note: I watch a 46" from just on 2 metres (my sweet spot being short sighted) and 4K will provide me the option to watch from further away on a larger screen and still see the same detail.

No, it's the opposite. 4K will let you sit *even closer* and see more detail. You already have to sit so close to even start realising the benefit of Full HD, even with very good eyesight. As your eye site gets worse it becomes even less important.

"I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there." | Octopus Energy | Sharesies
- Richard Feynman

Buzz Bumble

332 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#977082 30-Jan-2014 09:18

Jaxson:
... but personally I think it's a fear of something new.

More like the "fear" of spending another $1000 on yet another new TV (and recorder) after buying a new one just a year ago.

After decades of TV being tube-based devices that lasted "forever", in relatively quick succession recently we've had:
LCD -> LED -> HD -> 3D -> UHD.

They're still working on glaases-free 3D, smell-o-vision, and holographic TV.

NzBeagle

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#977124 30-Jan-2014 10:10

I think the manufacturers all got high on the CRT replacement era, where everyone was upgrading, after, like you say, selling CRTs that lasted 10 years +. Sales slow because people still want their new panels to last 3-5 years at least, but the manufacturers are trying to maintain the wave.

Similar to how CD/DVD sales dropped after everyone had finished replacing their collections with the new media, not because they had switched to piracy.

Similar to many others here I will upgrade my TV, and it will come with features I'm not sure i'll care for. The main features are the ability of the panel to reproduce a nice image, and for me, have relatively low input lag for gaming. UHD would be nice, but i'm not sure I want to shell out for one at the current price. Particularly as they are still half baked for the most part, I think only Panasonic sells one in NZ with HDMI 2.0.

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

Jaxson

8042 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#977216 30-Jan-2014 11:13

Here's that chart in useful units by the way, I converted it years ago. Honestly it could probably do with a recalc as it's been taken as gospel for a long long time now.

Yes consumers should have a fear of buying yet another new TV.
What I am saying though is that 4k has produced a product from which I can see a noticeable improvement. It's better.
Whether it's better enough for you to part with your money is your business, I'm just saying that to me it's noticeably better.

If you walk down the TV line at JB Hifi you'll notice the actual 'clarity' 'wow' 'impact' 'sharpness' of the 1080P sets backs off as the panel size increases.
The pixel density has to decrease to maintain the 1080p resolution as the panel size increases. All you are getting is bigger/fatter pixels.
By 65 and definitely on the big boys at 80" etc it starts looking quite SDish.
Yes, if you walked back for each size increase then it would sort itself out, but what if you want high definition on a big panel just across your lounge and not at the end of the hallway?
That's where 4k comes in and I think it's a good thing. Give it a couple of years and we should be able to afford it.

richms

28175 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#977243 30-Jan-2014 11:44

There are totally affordable 4k panels in the states already so it's only a matter of time before the absurdity by the big brands is wound in.

Still annoys me that with all the 120 and 240 hz panels they arent sorting out getting those rates into a tv at the same time as the higher rresolutions. would be great for gaming.

Richard rich.ms

mxpress

376 posts

Ultimate Geek

#977262 30-Jan-2014 11:57

richms: The problems I have with 3D is at least on my samsung, it sucks. Crosstalk, loses motion plus and the flicker is unbareable.

Tried a friends LG and it ended up like looking thru venetian blinds - horrid experiance but at least no added flicker. His TV was set up with bad motion becasue that's how he likes it, so I have no idea if the LG can keep the processing running while it is showing 3D.

A move to 4K might make the loss of resolution tollerable on the polarizing glasses ones. But I have no idea how many Hz would be needed to get shutter glasses working acceptably.

My Son has a 50" Samsung 3D and it is nothing short of amazing. The 3D only seems to flicker when the light is on, other wise truly best 3D I have ever seen.

mxpress

Dunnersfella

4086 posts

Uber Geek

#977696 30-Jan-2014 21:48

Jaxson:

If you walk down the TV line at JB Hifi you'll notice the actual 'clarity' 'wow' 'impact' 'sharpness' of the 1080P sets backs off as the panel size increases.
The pixel density has to decrease to maintain the 1080p resolution as the panel size increases. All you are getting is bigger/fatter pixels.

To be fair...
I was in JB's in Wellington last week, and the TV's were connected via component when I looked - receiving at 720p signal.
Why a retailer wouldn't use HDMI, well, I don't know...

richms

28175 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#977703 30-Jan-2014 22:11

Jb was probably kitted out before hdmi was a thing.

Warehouse has hdmi splitters but looked like 1080i from the artifacts some of the tvs were showing. 720p would be better in that case. Only takes one device on an hdmi splitter that can't do 1080p to take everything back to 1080i or 720p.

Richard rich.ms

Dunnersfella

4086 posts

Uber Geek

#977709 30-Jan-2014 22:27

...or worse, if the TV can't do 720p! Some Warehouse specials in the past often weren't so 'special'...

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5