When LG threw its weight behind passive 3D at this year’s CES, shockwaves rippled around the TV market. The brand used the show to rail against the dangers of Active Shutter 3D technology, enraging its rivals who cried foul. LG 42 LW650T Passive aggressive: LG's 42 LW650T Suddenly the consumer electronics industry found …
You spent most of the time slagging it off, yet its gets 80%, an other paid for review ?
Probably 10% for the basic telly, plus another rightful 10% for each of the seven pairs of bundled specs. Take that, money-grabbing competitors!
Shaky but promising?
Passive HAS to be the way to go until such time as non-glasses 3D comes of age, in my view. But this sounds a bit average for the price.
Question - why do TVs have all the settings and optional modes which often are best turned off? Why not just make it use the best settings, the people designing it should be far more expert than the DSS pleb watching it at this.
re: Why do TVs have all settings
Same reason as car stereos had 5 channel graphic equalisers - because some customers liked to brag and play
For years PeeCees cost a thousand quid 'cos thats how much shops wanted to take off folks. Now its Tellies. Snag is, there's nothing on the box so worth watching as to justify paying that much.
I think I'll walk my dog instead. (Hmm. a thousand quid will buy a whole bunch of dried dogfood. If I don't buy this tv I could afford a third dog...)
How does the image look in 3D-mode if you're not wearing the required glasses?
Who the FSCK cares?
Look, no offense, I admit that I'm a TV junkee. I mean I watch my fair share of TVs and movies at home instead of in the movie theater. Not to mention sports.
But the only reason I'll ever buy a 3D TV is because of picture quality and not because of the 3D feature.
Unfortunately, because I'll choose a set that has 3D feature, I'll get listed and labeled a person who bought a 3D set and want 3D.
Lets face it... 3D (stereoscopic images) is lame. Plus it gives me a head ache and makes me want to kill all humans....
In 3D mode if you aren't wearing glasses the image is displaced on odd and even rows to the left or right. A true 3D image, most of the background would look perfectly normal with the foreground objects smeared - in Holywood 3D everything is given a huge offset to make it look more 3D.
There is a resolution loss in the vertical with passive 3D, but it isn't necessarily noticable - the raw Bayer image from the camera only has 1/2 the horizontal and vertical resolution in the red and blue but you don't care about that.
The nice thing about passive, apart from not having to wear heavy glasses that you paid $200 for is that they use circular polarisers and so are a lot less sensitive to the angle of your head.
We use JVC passive TVs to do 3D editing on, they are pro-range so cost the best part of $10k, would be nice to have something a bit more affordable
Is it darker?
Serious question: Does the passive 3D filter make normal non-3D watching significantly gloomier?
I initially guessed it would, because passive 3D requires polarization; then I remembered that LCDs use polarization anyway, so now I'm not sure...
Also can someone clarify whether it's vertical resolution (horizontal lines) or horizontal resolution (vertical lines) that's compromised (and which is worse?)
- +Comment Anti-Facebook Ello: Here's why we're still in beta. SPAMGASM!
- NASA rover Curiosity drills HOLE in MARS 'GOLF COURSE'
- WHY did Sunday Mirror stoop to slurping selfies for smut sting?
- Business is back, baby! Hasta la VISTA, Win 8... Oh, yeah, Windows 9
- George Clooney, WikiLeaks' lawyer wife hand out burner phones to wedding guests