Now that the big name TV makers have made 3D a mainstream commodity, traditionally cheaper own-brand vendors are moving in for a slice of the pie. But does it make sense to nab a cut-price stereoscopic TV? Not on the evidence of this 42-incher, released under the Logik marque and distributed exclusively through Dixons, Currys …
Without any access to the tv in question
it's hard to see how a passive 3-d can fail to be registered unless there's something fundamentally wrong with the alignment of the image and the polarising strips.
Is it possible there's a mechanical fault with this particular unit? (or the software equivalent thereof?)
Does anyone ever proof read these articles?
If not, perhaps they should start. If they do, perhaps they should be fired.
This the same Dixons..
..selling fully branded 51" Active Shutter 3D TV's (albiet without the glasses) for £500 last time I was in? Why would you pay £600 for that borked box?
Dixons at least had the right idea going the passive route. If done properly, the results will look vastly superior to those obtained from shutter glasses, removing the annoying bleedthrough from one eye to the other. Sounds like a fail on the "done properly" part judging by this review.
Nothing wrong with Shutter Glasses
2011 spec shutter glasses from all the manufacturers are a vast improvement on the original Infra Red-driven tech of previously. There is no bleedhtrough across eyes or any problem whatsoever where compatible products are used.
This reviewed set is either a Friday build or Dixons has gone and bought a job lot of crap that couldn't be sold to the locals in the Far East and so has been dumped on Blighty.
Passive is unlikely to ever look as tight was active technology, but it shouldn't be a stark difference as the reviewer has witnessed. But then, I tend to shy away from any of Dixons own-brand stuff. It is generally C-grade nonsense.
What's with the odd slanted splitting of the screen and bevel into three-quarters black, one-quarter light grey, as illustrated in the first photo? Not quite sure I'd want a tv that looks like that... it'd be rather distracting, and the contrast ratio for the left part of the screen must be terrible.
...please slap that man! :-D
The last picture on the second page is even worse, like someone's gone mad with a spray can of silver paint. Their marketing people need to lay off the photoshop... what the hell is wrong with just showing a photo of the tv how it actually looks, without adding an obviously fake effect on top?
Amazon 1 star syndrome
Guys, when something is this bad, you owe it to us to check it isn't a faulty model. Otherwise you are no better than the green-ink brigade raving on Amazon: "The HDD arrived in a badly damaged box but I opened it anyway. It only worked for a bit and then it stopped. One star."
I got 3D from our 2D TV
BBC HD was doing side by side - I had a squint operation as a child.
I was able to overlay the two sides - squished 3D
is this TV any better?
- Geek's Guide to Britain Kingston's aviation empire: From industry firsts to Airfix heroes
- Analysis Happy 2nd birthday, Windows 8 and Surface: Anatomy of a disaster
- Adobe spies on readers: EVERY DRM page turn leaked to base over SSL
- Analysis The future health of the internet comes down to ONE simple question…
- Lollipop unwrapped: Chromium WebView will update via Google Play