If geeks love it, we’re on it

Dear 3D TV: Piss off

Dear 3D TV: Piss off

featureIcrontic’s grizzled news team has only just returned from the sands of Las Vegas, but our week at CES brought us to a unanimous decision: 3D television sucks. While every home theater component vendor from Tokyo to Beijing is wooding up at the thought of selling consumers yet another round of players, sets and discs, we’re just not interested in drinking that Kool-Aid.

Worst. Grape drink. Ever.

We’ve spent the last 10 years working to improve the size, sharpness, contrast and vibrancy of HD panels, but 3D technology–be it RealD or active LCD shutter–casts the image in a grey haze, and creates a nasty ghosting effect to the left of hard edges. We were especially glad to be rid of ghosting when we chucked our dial-driven VHF sets to the curb in 1994, and we’re equally disinterested in turning back the clock on our LCDs to the days when a muddy wash of green and grey passed for black.

Left: A beautiful, vibrant flower / Right: RUINED BY SHITTY 3D.

Left: A beautiful, vibrant flower / Right: RUINED BY SHITTY 3D.

More cynically, we’re not all that into paying for Sony’s blunders. Having essentially failed to create a next-gen home video standard that successfully lures consumers away from their upscaling DVD players, the entire Blu-ray Disc Association is scrambling to give the spec any gimmick it can think of in a desperate bid to make retail sales match their irrationally exuberant expectations.

The fallibility of 3D television must also be considered; many consumers (especially those with corrective lenses) suffer headaches or eyestrain, do not experience the intended 3D effect, or complain of flickering. Whereas we wouldn’t accept it from a computer or a car, home theater vendors are hoping that “most of the time, it works every time!” is enough to lure consumers.

DERP DE DERP 3D SMURF TITS OMGADZ

DERP DE DERP 3D SMURF TITS OMGADZ

Finally, there are socioeconomic concerns. The movie night is a time-honored tradition among movie buffs, but what happens to it when 3D takes the reins? Do we turn people away if they don’t have the glasses? Do they expect us to invest in goggles for our friends and family? Should we expect our friends to purchase glasses if they want to hang out and watch movies with us? If the MSRP of NVIDIA’s 3D Vision kit is any indicator, then we’d sooner ask our friends to drink paint. And when old titles receive their inevitable 3D remastering, should current Blu-ray owners re-buy their movies a third time? Piss on that.

While we’re at it, 3D gaming (while better than TV), has its own pains: Crosshairs often sit at the wrong Z depth, objects tend to “pop” in and out of the picture as they approach the bezel, the picture is washed out and hazy, it costs $200, and it requires a new monitor. Piss on that, too.

Long story short

The list of brands punching tickets on the OMG HOLY CRAP THE FUTURE express makes for a real who’s who of the industry: Samsung, LG, Sony, AMD, NVIDIA, Bobby Miller (that dick), Intel, Toshiba and Excedrin, to name a few. Indeed, it appears that 3D is a tide that cannot be turned, but we’re quite happy with our Big McHugelarge 4353450983245902345:1 LCDs, and won’t suffer Mexico City smog on our picture lightly.

Jog on, 3D.

Image credits:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikebaird/ / CC BY 2.0
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dyanna/ / CC BY-ND 2.0

Comments

  1. mas0n
  2. Butters
    Butters I nominate this article best of 2010. so far.
  3. primesuspect
    primesuspect My number one issue: wearing glasses sucks. It did in 1950. It did in 1980s. Virtual reality took it to an extreme in the 90s, and it failed there, and it's gonna fail in the '10s.

    Nobody wants to wear shit.
  4. Cliff_Forster
    Cliff_Forster The whole reason for the initial resurgence of 3D was for an experience in the theater that differentiated itself from the kind of improved experience people were getting at home with HD sets and DVD's. The multiplex owners clamored for an innovation that would give viewers a reason to make that first pass viewing in the theater (because in today's society the joy of a night out was no longer enough).

    3D makes some sense in the movie theater environment, I can even see it working nicely for some arcade machines, but at home, its just too cumbersome to want to deal with 24/7, and as you point out there are definite trade offs.

    I saw Journey to the Center of the earth in 3D at the theater, and on FIOS in HD recently, the HD presentation definitely looked more lively, more colorful. Even if they could get the tech mastered to the point where you loose nothing, dealing with the glasses, and the constant distraction of the "gee wiz" theme park effects is not something everyone is going to want. Its fun for an occasional diversion, two hours a couple times of year at a theater, I think that makes all the sense in the world, perhaps when your at the beach arcade, or a theme park, but at home, I just don't see it being successful.

    That R&D money could be better spent on paying writers and directors to make films and TV shows that don't suck.
  5. lordbean
    lordbean Agreed - I don't like where 3D tech is going either. It's a neat technology when it's used in, say, an IMAX theatre, but it really does take an enormous display in order to make the tech enjoyable. The glasses aren't honestly that comfortable, either - if it weren't for the fact that the picture doesn't look right without them, I might not have worn them at all when I watched Avatar. I really can't see this tech being viable for the home.
  6. Zuntar
    Zuntar I hate 3d glasses.
  7. BuddyJ
    BuddyJ Remember shop class in junior high. The teacher always made the kid with glasses put on goggles OVER THEIR GLASSES so you'd be even dorkier and super-uncomfortable all for the sake of "safety." 3D makes me feel like that. When I put on shutter glasses or, God forbid, the those horrible RealD I-wanna-be-Ray-Ban-Wayfarers shades, I feel like a tool. I know I look like a tool. Why would I spend money on that feeling?

    People with glasses (roughly 48 percent of the population) get screwed by the tech. We can't wear the glasses in the proper location so we've gotta resort to jamming or prescription lenses INTO OUR EYES or letting the 3D glasses slip off the tips of our noses. And then the image gets screwed up and you see a wonderful HD 1080P ghost to the left of EVERYTHING. WOW LOOK HOW FAR WE'VE COME! WE CROSSED THE UNCANNY VALLEY.

    3D: Don't need it.
  8. primesuspect
    primesuspect Nope! Don't need it!
  9. Garg
    Garg I think that 3D tech is cool, but it's not ready for my living room. I'm fine with putting on ze goggles at the theater or for the psuedo-science I do at school, but the usage scenario is a lot different in those spaces.
  10. GooD
    GooD I will never wear 3D glasses at home, never.

    Getting this kind of 3D-at-home is a waste of time, and im sure it will be a waste of money for those who bet on that to be the next "best thing to own" , like samsung.
  11. j
    j I 100% agree...I say again 100% agree
  12. primesuspect
    primesuspect That's rare. It MUST be right.
  13. UPSLynx
    UPSLynx The caption of the AVATAR image had me LOL'ing so hard that I completely missed the point of the rest of the article. (thought I did notice that I'm a dick, lul)

    10/10. Best article of the decade (so far).

    Great job. Also, 'OMG HOLY CRAP THE FUTURE' is official canon, the new tagline of 3D at home.
  14. rolleggroll
    rolleggroll I agree with this article 100%. Bobby Miller is indeed a dick.
  15. CB
    CB I don't mind the idea of 3D at home, but I'll wait for holodeck technology to be consumer-level affordable.
    should current Blu-ray owners re-buy their movies a third time?

    Some movie buffs have already bought their favorite movies three or even four times. If I had a Blu-Ray player, I would be buying my two favorite movies each on their third medium already.
    Cliff wrote:
    (because in today's society the joy of a night out was no longer enough).
    It would be if taking a family to the movies didn't cost half a month's salary.
  16. Tim
    Tim 3D stuff is like monorail train systems. I've heard of cities wanting to start a monorail system that would cost X millions of dollars, then it eventually got way more expensive and was then never even built.

    3D is like that. A bunch of unnecessary crap that no one really needs. It may improve something in some small way, but the cost isn't worth it. And if you have to buy new players and DVDs and monitors all over again, few people will.
  17. Shorty
    Shorty Here is a viewpoint that some may find interesting.

    3D sucks for me and a lot of other sufferers of eye conditions. I have amblyopia (also known as lazy eye/squint). I had surgery to correct a little of this when I was a child but you can't actually realign the eyes to be 100% forwards. This mean I don't have 3D vision. I see out of either one eye or the other. This means no depth of perception. I cannot see 3D. I have done eye exercises, had some eye therapy. This has helped to a degree but the fact remains that the 3D spatial vision that people take for granted is something I will never have. My brain simply isn't wired for it.

    This resurgance in 3D while wonderful is (politely) fucking horrendous. Congratulations for successfully ruining the visual experience for those of who can't see it. Movies are being constantly released ONLY in 3D. I sit with slightly darkened glasses watching the movie as flat as a pancake. It's not like I am in a minority here either.

    The lack of full pheriphal vision is very hard to grasp and can make day to day tasks like driving, parking and reaching for items difficult (especially when tired). I absolutely do not want to be forced to wear stupid, pointless tinted glasses at home. Get bent.

    The absolute arrogance astounds me. Over 10% of the GLOBAL population suffer variances of this condition. That is not an insignificant number.

    So yes, PISS OFF with your stupid glasses and don't limit peoples experiences. YOU BASTARDS.
  18. Sledgehammer70
    Sledgehammer70 3D fail... go back in a box and collect some dust!
  19. BuddyJ
    BuddyJ I didn't think anyone could equate 3D to efficient public transportation systems, but then Tim did it. Wow.
  20. Shorty
    Shorty
    Buddy J wrote:
    I didn't think anyone could equate 3D to efficient public transportation systems, but then Tim did it. Wow.
    Icrontic: making obscure but logical references since the dawn of time :cool:
  21. Snarkasm
    Snarkasm Don't be too quick to give out that "logical" modifier there, Shorty.
  22. ardichoke
    ardichoke Shorty earns a :tim: in addition to another :tim: for the original Tim post.
  23. yagga
    yagga Don't like it much either. My downloaded movie was 75% ruined in 3D. It would have been 100% but I still had last years super bowl paper 3D glasses near the TV. Paper glasses suck! Dark blue tinting sucks! Fuzzy picture sucks! 3D glasses that don't work suck! 3D is okay sometimes, but it annoys me. I'll choose "projected 3D," as in the picture actually looks like it's 'in' the room, like some old sci-fi stuff portrays it.
  24. Shorty
    Shorty
    ardichoke wrote:
    Shorty earns a :tim:

    For the post or for the comment on Tims comment ;)

    WATCH IT KIDDO :mad2:
  25. Nils I agree 100%! Take a minute and appreciate how long good old analog PAL / NTSC TV provided us all with great service. Here in Germany, analog color TV based on PAL was put into service in 1967. And then, it lasted for decades.

    Then, at the end of the 90's / beginning of the 00's, "digital" television was introduced. You had to buy a digital terrestrial receiver (or digital satellite / cable receiver) to watch that stuff. Quality-wise not much better, it at least allowed 25+ stations to be broadcast digitally and terrestrial where in the analog age, it was only about 6. Via satellite, of course, you could now get hundreds of channels instead of only about 50 before.

    So digital television was introduced, and it#s decades again, right? Well - no! Only about ten years later (for people who didn't adopt digital TV very early on even less than ten years later), HDTV is introduced. HDTV became "officially" available in Germany in 2009.

    And now ... two, three or even five years after that, HDTV is supposed to be "old news" once again, as they are trying to sell us 3DTV? When's that going to be obsolete? In another year? Do they want us to completely replace our equipment every two months in the future or what?

    Nope, first of all, as others have already pointed out, I don't see 3DTV making any sense in the home. Never. Then, I'm just as worried about how "revolutionary new" technologies come along all of the time and then become obsolte at a ridiculous rate, as I've tried to explain above.

    If you ask me, 3DTV is nothing more than a "gimmick". Of course, manufacturers and content producers would love you to buy into it, but I'm fairly sure that it'll fail. Customers ain't totally stupid and won't buy just "anything".

    Personally, I would very much appreciate it if movies would once again be based on a good plot instead of all those pointless special effects. In fact, I'd much rather watch such a quality movie in black and white than the latest 3D special effects shit...
  26. UPSLynx
    UPSLynx Very interesting perspective, Nils.

    Digital television was necessary. Broadcast stations had been stuck in the stoneage for FAR too long because everyone was afraid to push the industry into a need to upgrade. Now, the argument for HD content isn't quite so compelling. Of course, Televisions became 16:9 everywhere you looked, and viewers naturally wanted to fill that screen with picture and not have black bars on the sides. For that reason, I can see why they pushed for HD content. As for the additional HD detail in the images, it's really not necessary for broadcast news.

    I didn't know that HDTV's were still emerging in Germany, so that's quite unfortunate.

    Also, I'm glad this thread got bumped. This Op/ed is one of my favorites. That cat with the glasses makes me laugh every time.
  27. Snarkasm
    Snarkasm Unfortunate, or ideal? If the HDTV market hasn't been recently saturated, they can jump straight to 3D and cut out the middle cost of an HDTV in the meantime.
  28. UPSLynx
    UPSLynx very, very good point, Snarkasm. But are they launching those sets in Germany?
  29. Snarkasm
    Snarkasm Who knows, but if you knew something new was coming, would you waste your cash on an HDTV set? They have the time and the ability to wait, see what's coming in terms of programming and hardware, and make an educated decision whether they want to stick with their TV, go to HD, or go to 3D.
  30. yhdfthfh Can't believe some people actually think 3D is the future (especially when it comes to wearing glasses to see it.)
    Enjoy all the kids crap Hollywood churns out 3D fanboys!
  31. patrickcabenjamin
    patrickcabenjamin The 3D part doesn't even look that good anyway. They look like flat sheets placed on top of each other.
  32. Ah yes Luddites...3dtv is badass. You are the same people who decried DVD when it made VHS obsolete. Affordable 3dtv without glasses is about ten years away. Happy waiting! I'm going to enjoy my TC-P54VT25 now.
  33. primesuspect
    primesuspect I don't think you know what Luddites means. If we were Luddites, this article wouldn't exist BECAUSE IT'S ON THE INTERNET.
  34. Koreish
    Koreish
    I don't think you know what Luddites means. If we were Luddites, this article wouldn't exist BECAUSE IT'S ON THE INTERNET.

    No YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT A LUDDITE IS.

    Lol;D VHS how behind the times is he? It is Blu-ray vs. DVD now son.
  35. Cliff_Forster
    Cliff_Forster 3D TV will be a footnote at CES in Jan. The next big thing is connecting the TV to the net, that is going to be where the real battle is fought in consumer electronics.
  36. primesuspect
  37. Bandrik
    Bandrik But... but I like my 3D-enabled content on my 3D TV...
  38. cola
    cola 3D: IT'S LIKE I CAN TOUCH YOU!
  39. mertesn
    mertesn
    It only took three years. http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/8/3852452/death-of-3d
    Until the industry forgets again. So...about five years from now.
  40. Thrax
    Thrax BUT GUYS, YOU DON'T NEED GLASSES THIS TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  41. Bandrik
    Bandrik IT'S LIKE THE MATRIX NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
  42. Canti
    Canti 3D is, always has been, and always will be gimmicky bullshit that serves no purpose other than to charge people more money whether they want it or not, especially at the movie theaters. Glad to see it go away.

    For awhile.
  43. UPSLynx
    UPSLynx OMG HOLY CRAP THE FUTURE
  44. malia
    malia Thank goodness - 3D tv/movies do nothing but make me nauseous; I was worried I'd get sick for more reasons than one watching the Packers games if it went mainstream.
  45. CB
    CB curved screens are the future.
  46. Thrax
    Thrax Curved screens warp the aspect ratio.
  47. Bandrik
    Bandrik
    screens warp
    image

    ITS LIKE ITS COMING RIGHT AT ME!!!!
  48. Chooch
    Chooch I saw Samsung, LG and probably Sony having 3D TV but it is not heavily advertise like they have in years
  49. Snarkasm
    Snarkasm I mean, it's like many people didn't read the article. 3D did more or less win - it's still around and still being sold, you're just not hearing about it. It's ninjaing its way into your homes, and that's still market penetration, that's still sales, that's still some measure of success.

    Now we can argue usage, sure - everybody has 3D TVs, but nobody uses them - but the tech is clearly not dead if it's still being sold in large volumes.
  50. Bandrik
    Bandrik In all seriousness, what I really want is this.

    You could give me a huge list of reasons why it's silly gimmicks and bullshit. But fuck that, I want to indulge.
  51. CB
    CB I want to know when we're getting Google Glass. I haven't heqard much about it in a while. I want my personal eye-ball visor screen thing.

    If they're taking a break from that to do self-driving cars though, that's fine. I'll be the first on in line for one when they are legal in my state.
  52. CB
    CB I mean: I guess there's this thing, but it's not translucent, so it can take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.
  53. Bandrik
    Bandrik image

    Scouters? Yep, I'd want that too.
  54. Thrax
    Thrax
    I mean, it's like many people didn't read the article. 3D did more or less win - it's still around and still being sold, you're just not hearing about it. It's ninjaing its way into your homes, and that's still market penetration, that's still sales, that's still some measure of success.

    Now we can argue usage, sure - everybody has 3D TVs, but nobody uses them - but the tech is clearly not dead if it's still being sold in large volumes.
    It's being sold in large volumes because any 120Hz+ panel can do it. They're basically 3D by default.

  55. Snarkasm
    Snarkasm That's exactly my point. It's not dead. It's just not considered a selling point anymore (much like 'Look! Our car has doors!').
  56. Thrax
    Thrax I'm not certain what sort of definition of "dead" you use, but when a feature is no longer the central pillar of a marketing plan, no longer the central feature of your product and has remarkably stagnant utilization amongst consumers, that's dead to the tech industry.
  57. midga
    midga
    I want to know when we're getting Google Glass. I haven't heqard much about it in a while. I want my personal eye-ball visor screen thing.
    This. So much this. I want a HUD, dammit. I already have my GPS mounted in the upper-right as a minimap in my car, but it's just not good enough...
  58. Cliff_Forster
    Cliff_Forster
    I'm not certain what sort of definition of "dead" you use, but when a feature is no longer the central pillar of a marketing plan, no longer the central feature of your product and has remarkably stagnant utilization amongst consumers, that's dead to the tech industry.
    3D was dead out of the gate. You can only do so much to manufacture demand. 4K will not fare much better in the consumer space. It has massive potential for commercial applications though.

    Black and White / Color / HDTV - the next innovation will be getting rid of all the extra boxes and wires, a true integrated wireless ecosystem inside the TV. That's something consumers will pay for.

  59. Thrax
    Thrax I'm pretty positive 4K will gain traction, particularly when it comes to desktop monitors. But the uptake will take quite a long time as the content ecosystem catches up. But the economy of scale is there, so 4k is inevitable.
  60. mertesn
    mertesn
    I'm pretty positive 4K will gain traction, particularly when it comes to desktop monitors. But the uptake will take quite a long time as the content ecosystem catches up. But the economy of scale is there, so 4k is inevitable.
    Content and bandwidth. ISPs will need to invest in infrastructure soon...or just let Google take their business away by upgrading cities to fiber.
  61. Thrax
    Thrax Sony and Panasonic are already talking about a 4K disc format. Streaming 4k is pretty unrealistic, barring radical infrastructural changes, but discs? Yeah, we can do that.
  62. Cliff_Forster
    Cliff_Forster I don't think 4K will gain mainstream acceptance in the consumer space. It's a worthwhile technology for movie theaters and sports arena's and countless other commercial applications though. I think if you look at consumer electronics, the modern consumer values convenience over quality. Look, people carry a bunch of lower res audio files in their pockets and play them back on itsy bitsy ear buds, because it fits in your pocket, not because it's a better experience. People want to stream their content, not because it's better, but because it's more convenient. Optical disks are last years news, can I play a blu-ray on my tablet? I agree, 4K even if it's feasible to stream it at some point, I don't see anyone bending over backwards to implement it when what we have now is good enough for any 65" or less screen. I just don't see people rushing out to buy more HD than HD. I think it's wasted marketing in the consumer space. 4K is only practical for commercial applications. For consumers they need to focus on convergence. Less Wire's, TV's with more applications and better wireless connectivity.
  63. cola
  64. Tushon
    Tushon Reviving older discussion with this review of a $1500 4K TV
  65. Thrax
    Thrax Now, 4K is a future I can get behind.

    FUN FACT FROM YOUR FRIENDLY LOCAL AMD EMPLOYEE: All AMD Radeon HD 7000 Series products are equipped to display 4K content over DisplayPort or HDMI. The HD 7900 Series is sufficiently powerful for gaming in 4K as well.
  66. mertesn
    mertesn
    Reviving older discussion with this review of a $1500 4K TV
    A $1500 4K TV without apps, internet connectivity, or any other fancy features? I wish more companies would do this. I'd ask if there was a tuner built in, but I guess with (almost) mandatory set top boxes for anything not OTA, it doesn't really matter. Money will probably try to leave my pocket when 80+ inch panels become somewhat reasonably priced.
  67. PirateNinja
    PirateNinja
    4K is sweet, but it will not gain acceptance at home during the PS4's life cycle. It's current application is going to be huge screens in public venues digital movie theater projection. 1080P will be perfectly fine for home consumers for the foreseeable future. (FYI, I'm always right about consumer electronics, seriously, don't argue, I'll just come back to this thread five years from now and laugh at you).
    someone said somewhere something
  68. Tushon
    Tushon
    Reviving older discussion with this review of a $1500 4K TV
    A $1500 4K TV without apps, internet connectivity, or any other fancy features? I wish more companies would do this. I'd ask if there was a tuner built in, but I guess with (almost) mandatory set top boxes for anything not OTA, it doesn't really matter. Money will probably try to leave my pocket when 80+ inch panels become somewhat reasonably priced.
    Indeed. The point the author made was spot-on ("doesn't leave much room for R&D but they'll actually sell units"). At 80+ inches, doesn't projector generally make more sense or is your room not appropriate for that? I know 4k projectors aren't anywhere near reasonable right now, but neither are 4k TVs at that size (both were singly available, and $23k/$25k respectively).
  69. mertesn
    mertesn
    Indeed. The point the author made was spot-on ("doesn't leave much room for R&D but they'll actually sell units"). At 80+ inches, doesn't projector generally make more sense or is your room not appropriate for that? I know 4k projectors aren't anywhere near reasonable right now, but neither are 4k TVs at that size (both were singly available, and $23k/$25k respectively).
    We do all our TV/movie watching in the living room, which doesn't have very good lighting control. Also we have cats who would find a screen to be a delightful (if expensive) scratching surface.

    ...at which point I'd have a custom catskin screen.
  70. Tushon
    Tushon Oh man. That would be terrible indeed. My recent experience with cat has been one who doesn't know how to be a cat (i.e. doesn't scratch things, doesn't clean up it's litter box properly, scared to run outside at the first chance, enjoys wearing costumes) so I forget about these problems.
  71. UPSLynx
    UPSLynx
    Now, 4K is a future I can get behind.

    FUN FACT FROM YOUR FRIENDLY LOCAL AMD EMPLOYEE: All AMD Radeon HD 7000 Series products are equipped to display 4K content over DisplayPort or HDMI. The HD 7900 Series is sufficiently powerful for gaming in 4K as well.
    #BHS™
  72. fatcat
    fatcat h.265 and 4K up in a tree....
  73. fatcat
    fatcat also, I can't imagine the build quality of this is uber, but...

    Seiki 50" Class 4K 2160p 120Hz LED HDTV - 3840 x 2160, 16:9, 120Hz, 5000:1 Native, 6.5ms, 3x HDMI, VGA (SE50UY04)

    for some reason I suddenly want a Dell 30" monitor less and a 50" ZOMG 4K $1500 TV PLAYING GAMES....

    maybe
  74. Thrax
    Thrax PCPer did a 90-minute video review on that TV. Very informative.
  75. fatcat
    fatcat
    PCPer did a 90-minute video review on that TV. Very informative.

    o.O

    off to see how bad it is...
  76. Tushon
    Tushon
    also, I can't imagine the build quality of this is uber, but...

    Seiki 50" Class 4K 2160p 120Hz LED HDTV - 3840 x 2160, 16:9, 120Hz, 5000:1 Native, 6.5ms, 3x HDMI, VGA (SE50UY04)

    for some reason I suddenly want a Dell 30" monitor less and a 50" ZOMG 4K $1500 TV PLAYING GAMES....

    maybe
    Someone needs to click on links :D

    Same TV I linked to
  77. mertesn
    mertesn
    also, I can't imagine the build quality of this is uber, but...

    Seiki 50" Class 4K 2160p 120Hz LED HDTV - 3840 x 2160, 16:9, 120Hz, 5000:1 Native, 6.5ms, 3x HDMI, VGA (SE50UY04)

    for some reason I suddenly want a Dell 30" monitor less and a 50" ZOMG 4K $1500 TV PLAYING GAMES....

    maybe
    Someone needs to click on links :D

    Same TV I linked to
    Looks more like a Radeon HD 7990 review to me...
  78. Tushon
    Tushon
    also, I can't imagine the build quality of this is uber, but...

    Seiki 50" Class 4K 2160p 120Hz LED HDTV - 3840 x 2160, 16:9, 120Hz, 5000:1 Native, 6.5ms, 3x HDMI, VGA (SE50UY04)

    for some reason I suddenly want a Dell 30" monitor less and a 50" ZOMG 4K $1500 TV PLAYING GAMES....

    maybe
    Someone needs to click on links :D

    Same TV I linked to
    Looks more like a Radeon HD 7990 review to me...
    I will say I didn't click on his link, so poo on me. However, who mis-titles links like that?
  79. fatcat
    fatcat I read threads from newest to oldest Nick, hadn't scrolled far enough up. muh bad :p
  80. Tushon
    Tushon I see. You are a strange man. :D
  81. primesuspect
    primesuspect

    3D TV is dead.

    Nailed it:

    @Cliff_Forster said:
    but at home, its just too cumbersome to want to deal with 24/7, and as you point out there are definite trade offs.
    The next innovation will be getting rid of all the extra boxes and wires, a true integrated wireless ecosystem inside the TV. That's something consumers will pay for.

    @BuddyJ said:
    3D: Don't need it.

    @Thrax said:
    Dear 3D TV: Piss off

    Fumbled it:

    @CB said:
    curved screens are the future.

    @Thrax said:
    Streaming 4k is pretty unrealistic,

    Ah Yes said:
    3dtv is badass. You are the same people who decried DVD when it made VHS obsolete. Affordable 3dtv without glasses is about ten years away. Happy waiting! I'm going to enjoy my TC-P54VT25 now.

  82. BlackHawk
    BlackHawk

    Have yet to use the 3D feature of my TV. Don't even know how to get the movies and play them.

  83. ardichoke
    ardichoke

    Ding-dong 3D is dead!

    Now "Smart" TVs need to die. TV manufacturers are just proving over and over again that they're either unable or unwilling to provide software support for a consumer device. It has become a security issue in some cases too (Example: https://www.grahamcluley.com/2014/03/philips-tv/). Buy a dumb panel and plug the smart into it from a company that has a vested interest in fixing and upgrading the software on it. Yes it means you need to have a cable, but at least you don't have to replace your whole TV when your TV manufacturer decides to stop patching it after a year, leaving you with a not-fully-functional or, worse, insecure TV set.

  84. Linc
    Linc

    @ardichoke said:
    TV manufacturers are just proving over and over again that they're either unable or unwilling to provide software support for a consumer device. It has become a security issue in some cases too

    This argument is why I continue to suspect AppleTV will one day be an actual TV.

  85. ardichoke
    ardichoke

    I highly doubt that will happen. For one, there's not enough profit margin in TVs for Apple to be interested. They're much more interested in high margin wrist jobs and fondle slabs. Also, TVs don't fit well with Apple's one-size-fits-all mantra. In order to reel in enough consumers, you need to offer an array of sizes to fit various lifestyles and room sizes. I think it's pretty clear Apple prefers to offer one or two different variations of a product (from a physical size standpoint). Either they'd have a big flop on their hands because they would only offer 2 sizes of TV, thus not appealing to enough people, or they would be making a huge departure from their existing modus operandi.

  86. Snarkasm
    Snarkasm

    For now, my TV does do some smart things I like - it has a Netflix app, it has an Amazon Video app, it has a Skype app - but yeah, if I could get a separate box to do those things, I might be happier. The TV doesn't exactly have the processing power to be as smooth as I'd like, and there's probably no need for it to have the level of power it does if it was just to display signal instead.

  87. UPSLynx
    UPSLynx

    Kinda surprised it took so long. I know a few people who own 3D TVs that bought in during the mega hype that never, ever, ever use them.

    I never got around to buying a new display for my PC (lolololol 8 years later), and the only reason I own any 3D blu-ray content is because they come bundled in the deluxe editions of films.

    Also:

    @CB said:
    curved screens are the future.

    Do want. Real talk.

  88. Cliff_Forster
    Cliff_Forster

    Three years later, I was actually half wrong (IMPOSSIBLE)... 4K has gained far more traction in homes than I could have imagined. I could not foresee electronics manufactures charging such a slight premium for them. My son just went out and got a Samsung 55" 4K set and when considering it was only about $150 more than a similar 1080P model you would be foolish not to invest just a little more for your primary set.

    I bet in another year or so it will get to the point where electronics manufacturers consolidate their lines and go completely 4K, at least in the larger sizes 40" and up.

    I'm not sure it does a tremendous amount to improve the viewing experience, not like going from 4:3 SD to 16:9 HD broadcasts did, but it's a solid manufactured demand to keep the TV industry viable.

  89. Snarkasm
    Snarkasm

    @UPSLynx said:

    @CB said:
    curved screens are the future.

    Do want. Real talk.

    Samsung has oodles of them. I had to actively avoid them to find the TV I really wanted (and eventually ended up with a Sony instead of a Samsung at all).

  90. Thrax
    Thrax

    HDR+4K is the future. Not just 4K. I am 100% confident I am right on this. From 10 feet away on a 50" screen, 720p vs. 1080p vs. 4K has pixel density that exceeds human visual acuity (60 pixels per 1 degree of vision). This is why people say "I can't tell the difference."

    But nobody can fail to see the difference between a TV without HDR vs. one with HDR.

    HDR is fucking mind-blowing.

  91. ardichoke
    ardichoke

    @Thrax said:
    HDR is fucking mind-blowing.

    I mean, the Hickory Daily Record is Catawba Valley's source for local news and sports since 1915, but I don't know that I'd go so far as to call it mind blowing... rimshot

  92. Linc
    Linc

    @ardichoke said:
    For one, there's not enough profit margin in TVs for Apple to be interested.

    There's "no profit margin" in phones either. Or PCs. There wasn't in MP3 players either, for that matter. Yet somehow one materializes suddenly when Apple enters a market. Funny, that. :coffee:

    I think it's pretty clear Apple prefers to offer one or two different variations of a product (from a physical size standpoint). Either they'd have a big flop on their hands because they would only offer 2 sizes of TV, thus not appealing to enough people, or they would be making a huge departure from their existing modus operandi.

    There are currently 3 iPhone sizes, 5 iPad sizes, 6 laptop types/sizes, & 5 desktop types/sizes. I just bought a Sony TV that was only offered in 3 sizes. I guess Sony is screwed? None of this argument makes a lick of sense.

  93. AlexDeGruven
    AlexDeGruven

    @Thrax said:
    HDR+4K is the future. Not just 4K. I am 100% confident I am right on this. From 10 feet away on a 50" screen, 720p vs. 1080p vs. 4K has pixel density that exceeds human visual acuity (60 pixels per 1 degree of vision). This is why people say "I can't tell the difference."

    But nobody can fail to see the difference between a TV without HDR vs. one with HDR.

    HDR is fucking mind-blowing.

    The new LG OLED models are the first thing to make me consider upgrading my 1080p 55" since I got it 5 years ago. True black and a basically infinite contrast ratio pixel-to-pixel? Do want.

  94. Thrax
    Thrax

    But wait until you see an HDR OLED panel. My god, it's full of stars.

  95. drasnor
    drasnor

    @Thrax said:
    But wait until you see an HDR OLED panel. My god, it's full of stars.

    I currently use a 1080p 3D projector and my next upgrade is going to be HDR OLED 4k when those hit the right size/price point.

  96. ardichoke
    ardichoke

    @Linc said:

    @ardichoke said:
    For one, there's not enough profit margin in TVs for Apple to be interested.

    There's "no profit margin" in phones either. Or PCs. There wasn't in MP3 players either, for that matter. Yet somehow one materializes suddenly when Apple enters a market. Funny, that. :coffee:

    I think it's pretty clear Apple prefers to offer one or two different variations of a product (from a physical size standpoint). Either they'd have a big flop on their hands because they would only offer 2 sizes of TV, thus not appealing to enough people, or they would be making a huge departure from their existing modus operandi.

    There are currently 3 iPhone sizes, 5 iPad sizes, 6 laptop types/sizes, & 5 desktop types/sizes. I just bought a Sony TV that was only offered in 3 sizes. I guess Sony is screwed? None of this argument makes a lick of sense.

    Well, maybe I'm completely wrong then, but I still say they're not going to do it. The prices on cell phones and MP3 players were low enough that they could pad the price and get margins up to Apple levels while putting them at the top of typical consumer range. If you're talking about a TV that has razor thin margins at $2,000, then you put on the Apple tax, then I would expect you're starting to price too many customers out, even for Apple.

    Oh, and there are 3 sizes of iPad. Pro, Air and Mini. They are just selling two different generations of the Air and Mini currently. That's not the same as having 5 different sizes.

    Additionally, there is 1 sized MacBook, 2 sizes of MacBook Air, and 3 sizes of MacBook Pro. In my opinion, those are different Apple products as they are targeted at different users. Plus, computers are wildly different than a consumer electronic device like a phone, tablet or TV. The workload for a computer is extremely different for each user, which is why it makes sense for them to have more than one line of computers targeted at different users. They still have at most 3 sizes in each line.

    There are only two sizes of iPhone, the standard and the Plus, once again they are still selling older generations of iPhone. Lumping an older generation in and saying it's just a different size of iPhone is disingenuous.

    As for Sony, they don't have as tightly controlled branding or the yearly product line refresh that Apple does. It seems like they're constantly putting out new lines of TVs with marginal improvements. So yes, some lines only have a few sizes, but the difference between one line and the next seems to be almost nothing.... and they also have lines of TVs that have a larger number of sizes as well. If Apple were to get into the TV game, I would wager they would start by offering 1 or 2 sizes, then a couple years later, assuming the first gen wasn't a total flop, they would probably add a third size (and continue selling the previous generation, though two of the sizes would be the same between generations). There would still only be 3 sizes of TV total, whereas Sony has dozens of sizes of TV, you just might have to look at a line with slightly different styling or effectively meaningless technical differences to find the one you want. It's not really an apples-to-apples comparison at all.

    Finally, I'm way more inclined to believe that Apple is developing their own self-driving car to compete with Google than I am to believe they're wanting to get into a way over saturated TV market.

  97. Sonorous
    Sonorous

    @ardichoke said:
    Additionally, there is 1 sized MacBook, 2 sizes of MacBook Air, and 3 sizes of MacBook Pro

    Only two sizes of MBP. 13" and 15". They killed off the 17" a while back.

  98. ardichoke
    ardichoke

    @Sonorous said:

    @ardichoke said:
    Additionally, there is 1 sized MacBook, 2 sizes of MacBook Air, and 3 sizes of MacBook Pro

    Only two sizes of MBP. 13" and 15". They killed off the 17" a while back.

    Ah, I saw the Pro 13 and Pro 13 w/ retina as two different sizes. Thanks for the correction.

  99. primesuspect
    primesuspect

    I don't think Apple is going to get into a commodity market but if they do, they will redefine or at least push what we consider a "TV" into "new category of device" territory.

  100. Sonorous
    Sonorous

    @primesuspect said:
    I don't think Apple is going to get into a commodity market but if they do, they will redefine or at least push what we consider a "TV" into "new category of device" territory.

    I feel like those days of Apple are pretty much over. Maybe I'm wrong. If Apple made a display that was geared towards home use, they would most likely just stick an AppleTV in an aluminum clad 55" 4k something and call it done. Not that I think they have any interest in trying to break into the living room any more than they already have with the iPad and current AppleTV.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!