Green Tractor Talk banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,991 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
My Sony Bravia LCD TV died suddenly after 12 years of trouble free service. While shopping for a replacement it suddenly occurred to me that I no longer see advertisements for 3D TV. For a while there they were trying to convince everyone they needed a 3D TV and now nada. Has it gone the way of DIVX?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,279 Posts
My Sony Bravia LCD TV died suddenly after 12 years of trouble free service. While shopping for a replacement it suddenly occurred to me that I no longer see advertisements for 3D TV. For a while there they were trying to convince everyone they needed a 3D TV and now nada. Has it gone the way of DIVX?
I've noticed the same thing, think it must have died on the vine. I was just as Sam's Club today shopping for a new TV and I didn't see 3D even mentioned, starting to see 4K being pushed now. I'm pretty happy with just HD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
825 Posts
Most new smart TVs should be able to read divx files or have the ability to download an app to read the format. UHD is in, 3D is out.


- bucket teeth
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
778 Posts
I think it fizzled out. The movies were becoming as expensive as video games from the 90s LOL The glasses were also extremely expensive and not completely comfortable. For black friday my wife treated us to a new tv for MY living room. She kept my older plasma for her girly shows. I was thinking long and hard about one of the newer Sony 4K tv's but after looking at the specs and reading through the HT forums I found that there were too many flaws in the lower end ones. I opted for a 2016 model Sony had put out that was from their Magnolia line. It was one of the tv's that they put against all the other brands and said touch this! Needless to say it as $6-7k back in the day. Best buy had several in their DC for a fraction of the price. I rather have 2yr old bad @ass top tier technology than subpar 2018 tech.

Found two, 3D glasses in the box during unboxing. Had no idea :laugh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
825 Posts
I think it fizzled out. The movies were becoming as expensive as video games from the 90s LOL The glasses were also extremely expensive and not completely comfortable. For black friday my wife treated us to a new tv for MY living room. She kept my older plasma for her girly shows. I was thinking long and hard about one of the newer Sony 4K tv's but after looking at the specs and reading through the HT forums I found that there were too many flaws in the lower end ones. I opted for a 2016 model Sony had put out that was from their Magnolia line. It was one of the tv's that they put against all the other brands and said touch this! Needless to say it as $6-7k back in the day. Best buy had several in their DC for a fraction of the price. I rather have 2yr old bad @ass top tier technology than subpar 2018 tech.

Found two, 3D glasses in the box during unboxing. Had no idea :laugh:
You can sell those 3D glasses next time Antique Roadshow is in town.


- bucket teeth
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,991 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I've noticed the same thing, think it must have died on the vine. I was just as Sam's Club today shopping for a new TV and I didn't see 3D even mentioned, starting to see 4K being pushed now. I'm pretty happy with just HD.
Same here. Not really interested in a Smart TV especially since I already own a Roku Ultra box. It's starting to get difficult to find decent non-4K TVs. After a rather short on-line research session I ended up getting a TCL 49" regular 'ole HD "dumb" TV for $287. I paid $1500 for my old 40" Sony Bravia. I never heard of TCL before but kept reading good things about them. I am extremely happy with the TV. 3-HDMI inputs allowed me to plug in my Cable DVR, Roku and Blu-Ray player. Even though it is "just" HD the picture quality is way better than my old Sony LCD and it uses 1/3 the electricity. My old Sony weighed around 60 lbs and this thing only weighs around 25 lbs. I suspect the Sony used more metal stuff inside. ;-)

I don't expect this one to last 12 years like the old Sony did but who knows.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts
I think the 3D TV thing was just another marketing ploy manufacturers used to get us to want and buy the "latest and greatest." Yes, wearing the glasses was a pain and likely contributed to it's downfall.

I still have the 60" LCD Sony purchased in 2003. That was back when I was married to the doctor. I'm pretty sure the TV alone was $5k, and the stand was $900(!). It was one of the first big HDTV's Sony made and still kicks ass. I replaced the bulb once, but aside from that it's been rock solid.

2nd Wife and I got a 55" Sony 4K UHD smart TV. Picture is amazing, and almost looks 3D-ish. Even old MASH episodes look fantastic on DirecTV. I believe it was $1,200.

Sad thing is I watch very little TV, aside from college football. There is just too much other stuff for me to do around the acreage and with photography side business.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,338 Posts
Most new smart TVs should be able to read divx files or have the ability to download an app to read the format. UHD is in, 3D is out.


- bucket teeth
3D is definitely "out". The 2016 model year marked the last time TV's were produced with the 3D capabilities in them. I bought a 2016 model that has it, and I will never, EVER, use it. It died because it was seen as nothing more than a gimmick that required special TV's, special, DVD/BluRay players, special glasses, AND special media. And ALL of it was more expensive than the non 3D counterparts. There was no real "wow factor" to 3D that would warrant repurchasing your entire BluRay library so shortly after having bought on BluRay everything you previously owned on DVD.

In short, all supply and no demand.

UHD is not "in". It's still coming of age and is not yet fully mainstream. The HUGE difference in quality from DVD to BluRay (which was mirrored with moving from Standard Definition to High Definition) is simply not there with UHD compared to HD. The most significant advantage to UHD over HD is that you can have a larger panel and/or sit closer to the set without sacrificing resolution quality. That is 100% "it" in terms of advantages.

TV's are coming down in price while having 4K ability, and people are starting to buy replacement BluRay players that can handle UHD. They will then start purchasing digital media that is UHD while SOME programming gets converted over to being able to support UHD. But, given the lack of 'wow factor', most programming outlets are very reluctant to make the huge investment in upgrading all of the cameras and transmission equipment since folks are not going to be willing to foot the bill for it. They'll subscribe, watch it for a while, and think "why am I paying more for this? It isn't massively better." and they will unsubscribe. UHD is going to roll into place MUCH more slowly than HD did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,554 Posts
Truth is they found Bayer, Advil, Goodies companies wouldn't be able to keep enough product stocked to handle the number of headaches... If you REALLY NEED 3D just watch with one eye covered for a while. Yup, it really works.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,563 Posts
Truth is they found Bayer, Advil, Goodies companies wouldn't be able to keep enough product stocked to handle the number of headaches... If you REALLY NEED 3D just watch with one eye covered for a while. Yup, it really works.
This is the equivalent of HD VHS. Just ain't no way it will make a huge dent. My 2008 XBR will be around until it dies, unless I can get a board to fix it when it does!

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 

·
Old Pa-pa
Joined
·
11,422 Posts
Would almost guess the next big thing in home entertainment will be holographic projection systems.

That should kick the price back up to the 10K to 30K have to have range.:laugh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,563 Posts
Would almost guess the next big thing in home entertainment will be holographic projection systems.

That should kick the price back up to the 10K to 30K have to have range.
I doubt the holodeck will be of Star Trek TNG, quality any time soon. They do have VR goggles now though. 1080P is good enough for me, until the programming gets substantially better. Even some new movies are crap, just like The Office, the Middle, etc.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,338 Posts
This is the equivalent of HD VHS. Just ain't no way it will make a huge dent. My 2008 XBR will be around until it dies, unless I can get a board to fix it when it does!

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Odds are that set will continue to run for quite a while. And, you may well be able to get a replacement board if it dies, but it won't be new. What's worse, the panel itself will have so many hours logged on it that the quality of the image will absolutely be degraded. When it's all said and done, a replacement set with better picture quality will be cheaper and easier.

My parents had a 46" Sony HD that was bought in 2008 that they replaced after nine years with a 2017 Sony 55" UHD set. The LOVE the picture on the new set even though their programming hasn't changed. And I was quite surprised to see just how washed out the pic on the old panel was after so many thousands of hours of use (their set is on roughly 70-75 hours per week).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,665 Posts
Lots of things that come out in the electronics world are fads.
Trouble is, its hard to tell when they first come out if they are or not.
I think the new 4K thing is going to be similar, but have nothing to base that on, and will probably be wrong.
Curved TVs too...great for viewing from one spot, but not if you have seats all over the room.
How good of a picture do we need anyway?

Most of what we watch is for entertainment.
Im just as entertained watching a football game whether its in old "standard def" or the highest of the high def there is, where you can see every single blade of fake grass.
Same with movies. Some details are nice to see, but for the most part, its about the story or the action.
People think Im crazy because we still have a 32" tube tv as our main set.
We have a 42" plasma in the back of the house and a 32" LCD in the bedroom, and each has a better picture than the other. Its nice to have a better picture, but certainly not necessary for entertainment purposes. At least not to me.
Now, when the tube goes, we will get whatever is available at the time that fits the bill. It will likely be 4K compatible, but not too many providers are using it, so its a waste.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,338 Posts
Lots of things that come out in the electronics world are fads.
Trouble is, its hard to tell when they first come out if they are or not.
I think the new 4K thing is going to be similar, but have nothing to base that on, and will probably be wrong.
Curved TVs too...great for viewing from one spot, but not if you have seats all over the room.
How good of a picture do we need anyway?

Most of what we watch is for entertainment.
Im just as entertained watching a football game whether its in old "standard def" or the highest of the high def there is, where you can see every single blade of fake grass.
Same with movies. Some details are nice to see, but for the most part, its about the story or the action.
People think Im crazy because we still have a 32" tube tv as our main set.
We have a 42" plasma in the back of the house and a 32" LCD in the bedroom, and each has a better picture than the other. Its nice to have a better picture, but certainly not necessary for entertainment purposes. At least not to me.
Now, when the tube goes, we will get whatever is available at the time that fits the bill. It will likely be 4K compatible, but not too many providers are using it, so its a waste.
Curved TV's have proven to be a fad. Samsung still has one or two, I think, and I absolutely don't know why. The only value I could ever see from a curved set would be for a primary viewer only, and only on a fairly large panel size.

4K for panels is not a fad - it is here to stay. At least, until some knucklehead figures out how to hype 8K. 4K for media sources, however, is still a long way off. I saw a video on YouTube where someone was arguing that our eyes don't have the ability to "see" in 4K, and then went on to provide scientific details about vision that actually proved him wrong (although he completely glossed over it in his video because he didn't understand what he was talking about). Apple did studies a number of years back to determine the optimal resolution level to suit our eyes. This was deemed "Retina" quality (as a marketing term) and is why so many Apple products now offer "Retina Displays." I believe that, numerically, it comes out somewhere around what would be called 5K resolution (slightly better than 4K). Beyond this level of detail, we simply can't see it.

So, we may have almost neared the peak of what display capabilities will get to, and we'll just have to wait for the programming sources to catch up.

Here's the REAL area of concern with 4K and better becoming the norm - Internet service costs. With the repeal of Net Neutrality and the application and enforcement of data transfer caps by ISP's, actually being able to WATCH the higher resolution programming from streaming services is going to drive up ISP costs and "replace" what you save by dumping your cable company for programming.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,991 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
4K for panels is not a fad - it is here to stay. At least, until some knucklehead figures out how to hype 8K. 4K for media sources, however, is still a long way off. I saw a video on YouTube where someone was arguing that our eyes don't have the ability to "see" in 4K, and then went on to provide scientific details about vision that actually proved him wrong (although he completely glossed over it in his video because he didn't understand what he was talking about). Apple did studies a number of years back to determine the optimal resolution level to suit our eyes. This was deemed "Retina" quality (as a marketing term) and is why so many Apple products now offer "Retina Displays." I believe that, numerically, it comes out somewhere around what would be called 5K resolution (slightly better than 4K). Beyond this level of detail, we simply can't see it.
Isn't the perceived detail still a factor of display size and viewing distance? It all boils down to PPI (pixels per inch). When an HD screen is large enough or you are sitting close enough to see the pixels, 4K would indeed increase the detail resolution for you (assuming the source is 4K). If you sit close to a large 4K screen and can see the pixels then 8K would again be an improvement.

But for the typical 50-65 inch display being viewed from across the room you would have a difficult time telling the difference between HD and 4K, let alone 8K.

I also go back to something I brought up a while back. When does HDTV simply become "TV"? We're still paying a premium for HD content from cable providers even though most stations now broadcast in HD. As a result HD is now the standard and there is no SD. When 4K come along I'm sure they will charge an additional premium for that above and beyond what you are paying for HD... and so on and so on.

I'm sure if cable companies had been around in the 60's they would have charged a premium for color over B&W. Remember when TV shows used to advertise they were "in color"? I remember watching "The FBI"... "In Color". :)

So when do we lose all the darn "HD" labels?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,563 Posts
Curved TV's have proven to be a fad. Samsung still has one or two, I think, and I absolutely don't know why. The only value I could ever see from a curved set would be for a primary viewer only, and only on a fairly large panel size.

4K for panels is not a fad - it is here to stay. At least, until some knucklehead figures out how to hype 8K. 4K for media sources, however, is still a long way off. I saw a video on YouTube where someone was arguing that our eyes don't have the ability to "see" in 4K, and then went on to provide scientific details about vision that actually proved him wrong (although he completely glossed over it in his video because he didn't understand what he was talking about). Apple did studies a number of years back to determine the optimal resolution level to suit our eyes. This was deemed "Retina" quality (as a marketing term) and is why so many Apple products now offer "Retina Displays." I believe that, numerically, it comes out somewhere around what would be called 5K resolution (slightly better than 4K). Beyond this level of detail, we simply can't see it.

So, we may have almost neared the peak of what display capabilities will get to, and we'll just have to wait for the programming sources to catch up.

Here's the REAL area of concern with 4K and better becoming the norm - Internet service costs. With the repeal of Net Neutrality and the application and enforcement of data transfer caps by ISP's, actually being able to WATCH the higher resolution programming from streaming services is going to drive up ISP costs and "replace" what you save by dumping your cable company for programming.
Yep absolutely. Right now the net is not capped, but if the rediculous Apple gets its way, we will not have unlimited Gb of data very soon. They are letting us get used to this and then BAM.... It will be you have to pay for it. Just like the nonsense the big 3 networks are doing. You get 5 shows, right now, to watch for free. Even though you pay with subscription, (for what I get for free over the air) they still put commercials in. They are even going so far as making net only TV. Soon the shows you get over the air will be crap, and the only ones they will spend time and real money on will be on the pay site. It will eventually be you will pay through the nose for each network, and not be able to watch, because your data package costs so much, then you will have to reduce the quality back to SD, so you paid lots for everything, including the TV and may as well have kept your 1080P set. It is good enough.
If people are stupid enough to pay for what we all can get for free right now, nothing will be free for anyone and you will be working for anything you watch. Better, is not always better.
Sorry for the rant.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
438 Posts
Haven't read the thread, but I think 3D was a gimmick that never took off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,338 Posts
Isn't the perceived detail still a factor of display size and viewing distance? It all boils down to PPI (pixels per inch). When an HD screen is large enough or you are sitting close enough to see the pixels, 4K would indeed increase the detail resolution for you (assuming the source is 4K). If you sit close to a large 4K screen and can see the pixels then 8K would again be an improvement.

But for the typical 50-65 inch display being viewed from across the room you would have a difficult time telling the difference between HD and 4K, let alone 8K.

I also go back to something I brought up a while back. When does HDTV simply become "TV"? We're still paying a premium for HD content from cable providers even though most stations now broadcast in HD. As a result HD is now the standard and there is no SD. When 4K come along I'm sure they will charge an additional premium for that above and beyond what you are paying for HD... and so on and so on.

I'm sure if cable companies had been around in the 60's they would have charged a premium for color over B&W. Remember when TV shows used to advertise they were "in color"? I remember watching "The FBI"... "In Color". :)

So when do we lose all the darn "HD" labels?
I actually commented on what you're referring to a few posts back. Not sure if it's perceived or actual, but the biggest advantage to a 4K (UHD) panel over 2K (HD) is that you can sit closer to the same size screen or have a larger screen at the same distance without seeing "grain" or distortion in the image because of the pixel size/density.

What I find very interesting is that, even though HD "should be" plenty good enough, I noticed quite an improvement in overall picture quality even though I went to a MUCH larger screen size when replacing the dead HD set with a UHD set and not driving it with different image sources. In other words, the content I was watching was mostly HD with some 720 mixed in, I was sitting about 12-13 feet from my 55" panel, and the new 75" UHD panel looked immensely better overall. At that distance, I should have not seen an improvement since I increased the panel size so much, but not only did I see it get better, it got a LOT better.

I don't think you'll ever see the "HD" get dropped from HDTV. The only change we're likely to see would be to move on to UHDTV or similar.

Not only do I remember when shows started to be available in color and say "in color" during the opening credits, I remember asking my dad why Batman wasn't actually showing in color even though it said it. He reminded me that we only had a B&W TV. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,338 Posts
Yep absolutely. Right now the net is not capped, but if the rediculous Apple gets its way, we will not have unlimited Gb of data very soon. They are letting us get used to this and then BAM.... It will be you have to pay for it. Just like the nonsense the big 3 networks are doing. You get 5 shows, right now, to watch for free. Even though you pay with subscription, (for what I get for free over the air) they still put commercials in. They are even going so far as making net only TV. Soon the shows you get over the air will be crap, and the only ones they will spend time and real money on will be on the pay site. It will eventually be you will pay through the nose for each network, and not be able to watch, because your data package costs so much, then you will have to reduce the quality back to SD, so you paid lots for everything, including the TV and may as well have kept your 1080P set. It is good enough.
If people are stupid enough to pay for what we all can get for free right now, nothing will be free for anyone and you will be working for anything you watch. Better, is not always better.
Sorry for the rant.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Huh?

What do you mean that "the net is not capped"? MANY ISP's have hard limits on the amount of data you can transfer. I'm also curious as to what you are referring to with the comment about Apple.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top