televisions, ; - Gizmodo

posts about #televisions more →
Study Claims Motion Blur Is a Non-Issue In Most Mid-To-High-End LCDs
The Cell Regza (PS3 TV) Sorts Shows by Similarity
NEWSFLASH: No One Wants to Pay More for 3D
Kymera Magic Wand Universal Remote Will End Dates, Quickly
Local Dimmed LCD vs Normal LCD
Sony XBR10 Flagship LCD HDTV Has Sidelit LED, Wireless HDMI and Media Streaming
Sony Gets 3D Fever: 3D Bravia TV Next Year, PlayStation 3 Support Planned
LG Preparing to Reveal Largest Retail OLED TV Next Month
Add Sony Remotes to the List of Things Man Never Needed to Waterproof
Are Your Eyeballs Ready For a 480Hz LCD TV?

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

fuchikoma
11/06/09

In reply to Study Claims Motion Blur Is a Non-Issue In Most Mid-To-High-End LCDs
Just as there are "super noses" who can detect the slightest variation in a million wines, or people who can tell you exactly which frequency they're hearing, there will be people who can see blur in most LCDs.

Personally I haven't seen LCD blur since around 12-15ms response times became the norm. I see MPEG artifacting and trailing, and even dim afterimages in HDMI signals on PS3 and 360, but motion is not an issue. #motionblur
Reply

fuchikoma was starred fuchikoma was unstarred

MarcusMaximus
11/04/09

In reply to Study Claims Motion Blur Is a Non-Issue In Most Mid-To-High-End LCDs
Umm isn't the 60Hz important because it exactly matches broadcast HD framerate? And 120Hz is because both 60Hz(for the reason above) and 24Hz(because movies are filmed at 24Hz) both go evenly into it? I always thought the issue was more with dropped frames and the like due to mismatched frame rates. #motionblur
Reply

The Lab promoted this comment MarcusMaximus was starred MarcusMaximus was unstarred

N@tedog
11/04/09

@MarcusMaximus: Stop with the curveballs. This is any easy yes or no question. With that in mind, you can never tame the beast. Moving on... #motionblur
Reply

N@tedog was starred N@tedog was unstarred

MarcusMaximus
11/04/09

@N@tedog: How is that a curveball? The article says that 60 and 120Hz refresh rates aren't necessary to not have motion blur, and I responded saying It was my understanding they were mainly for a different, unrelated function, and one which they do actually perform. As far as I can tell that's perfectly on topic and a valid response. #motionblur
Reply

MarcusMaximus was starred MarcusMaximus was unstarred

phunnyballs
10/14/09

In reply to The Cell Regza (PS3 TV) Sorts Shows by Similarity
This seems like a really bad idea.

But I guess if it took into consideration directors, actors, writers, etc. it would work.

I would just find it really hard to believe it would do such a good job at organizing it, that it would be more useful than knowing the channel and time that it is on. Or even doing a simple title search to find your show.

I really dont see the point. and I am a guy that shuns people that "dont see the point" in gadget extras.
Reply

phunnyballs was starred phunnyballs was unstarred

yantelope
10/14/09

In reply to The Cell Regza (PS3 TV) Sorts Shows by Similarity
Well the problem with grouping shows by similarity is that everything on TV will fall into 2 categories: CSI and Medical Drama. Oh, and football.
Reply

ceilingFANBOY promoted this comment yantelope was starred yantelope was unstarred

ceilingFANBOY
10/14/09

@yantelope: Funny. Out of everything that I watch, football is the only thing that you have covered, which is the one thing I don't record.
Reply

ceilingFANBOY was starred ceilingFANBOY was unstarred

Navin R Johnson
10/06/09

In reply to NEWSFLASH: No One Wants to Pay More for 3D
"consumers are willing to pay for a mostly artificial price premium rather than one fully explainable by technical merit."

People just know that even AFTER they paid more for the technical upgrade they'd STILL have to pay more for the artificial premium.

At least the hardware gets cheaper eventually, the artificial premiums never end.

Look at Blueray. Pay more for the player, then pay more for the disks.
Reply

Navin R Johnson was starred Navin R Johnson was unstarred

dry-roasted-peanuts
10/05/09

In reply to NEWSFLASH: No One Wants to Pay More for 3D
How about we pay more for in theatre bouncers instead? Big ones. With clubs.

That, I would GLADLY pay more for.
Reply

masteroffm
10/05/09

In reply to NEWSFLASH: No One Wants to Pay More for 3D
with amblyopia in one eye, astigmatism and farsighted in the other eye 3D is wasted on me. needless to say I wont ever spend a dime on 3D anything.
Reply

masteroffm was starred masteroffm was unstarred

collectiveego
10/05/09

@masteroffm: there's a format that is supposed to work without glasses that I've seen before that's in the works for this kind of situation. I want to say keep an eye out for it..but I don't want to seem insensitive.
Reply

dingus promoted this comment collectiveego was starred collectiveego was unstarred

drew-opolis
10/05/09

@masteroffm: same here. I get retartedly excited about 3D things everynow,only to remember that my eyes are so screwed I barely see real-life in 3D.
Reply

dingus promoted this comment drew-opolis was starred drew-opolis was unstarred

reddingofish
10/05/09

In reply to NEWSFLASH: No One Wants to Pay More for 3D
I clicked on one of the articles on the right and realized that a 3D TV would be great for gaming. I don't know why it wasn't obvious before. I would buy a 3D TV for gaming.
Reply

reddingofish was starred reddingofish was unstarred

k-napped
10/05/09

In reply to NEWSFLASH: No One Wants to Pay More for 3D
Bah, I don't even watch Bluray, nevermind Bluray with 3D, Smellovision or w/e other faddy thing the big boys want to sell us. I'm happy with my low def MST3K netflix DVDs.
Reply

k-napped was starred k-napped was unstarred

Sockatume
10/05/09

In reply to NEWSFLASH: No One Wants to Pay More for 3D
Are those meant to be greater-than signs? You're arguing that the majority would be willing to pay over $200 extra for the TV, and two thirds would pay anything over $50 extra for the player.

However you then say that those same people will only pay $5 or less extra for the discs?
Reply

Mark Wilson promoted this comment Sockatume was starred Sockatume was unstarred

Mark Wilson
10/05/09

@Sockatume: I see how you read this, but it really means that the survey asked people if they'd pay within the ranges of $200, $50 or $5 more. So no, they aren't meant to be greater than signs.
Reply

Mark Wilson was starred Mark Wilson was unstarred

reddingofish
10/05/09

In reply to NEWSFLASH: No One Wants to Pay More for 3D
I don't think 3D TV will become common place until they start making video walls. If I had a whole wall for a screen then I would want it to be 3D, and if I could afford to get more than one wall then I defiantly would want them in 3D. My dream would be to have all four walls of my TV room to be 3D video walls then I could be closer to my TV family.
Reply

reddingofish was starred reddingofish was unstarred

Dr. H. F. Danger
10/05/09

In reply to NEWSFLASH: No One Wants to Pay More for 3D
NEWSFLASH: Real life is in 3D!
AMAZINGATASTIC!
Reply

Dr. H. F. Danger was starred Dr. H. F. Danger was unstarred

OCEntertainment
10/05/09

@Dr. H. F. Danger: Yeah, too bad you can only see it in about two and a half. :-P
Reply

OCEntertainment was starred OCEntertainment was unstarred

Kaiser-Machead
10/05/09

In reply to NEWSFLASH: No One Wants to Pay More for 3D
And with more and more movies being complete swill, there's even less incentive. Would any of you masochistic folks out there want to pay extra to see Transformers in 3D? You'd probably feel like Bay is massaging the back of your eyeballs with a Sharper Image abortion of a vibrating doohickey. It doesn't add much value to the picture itself, little more than a first-time whiz-BANG effect.
Reply

Kaiser-Machead was starred Kaiser-Machead was unstarred

MarcusMaximus
10/05/09

@Kaiser-Machead: I think you're going in the wrong direction with that. Would "Gone with the Wind" in 3D be more of an incentive? It's certainly not swill. I think the issue isn't so much the quality of the movies being made, as much as it is that 3D isn't taken into account when actually putting the idea of the movie and the setup of the scenes down when beginning said movies. Good movies as well as bad ones will need to take such things into account.
Reply

Kaiser-Machead promoted this comment MarcusMaximus was starred MarcusMaximus was unstarred

Monty
10/05/09

@Kaiser-Machead: Good point.

Even if the movie is good, often the 3D effects do not add to the quality of the film. Sometimes it even detracts. For example, Up was a great movie, but the non-3D version (in my opinion) was superior.

Part of the reason that can happen is that there has to be a compelling reason to sit with those obnoxious glasses on for hours at a time. While there may occasionally be a great 3D movie, it is hard to believe that it will happen enough to warrant purchasing a new TV and wearing 3D glasses.

Perhaps when sports programs start broadcasting in 3D it may be compelling. But, even then, I just can't imagine having twenty buddies over to watch a game and all of us wearing those ridiculous things.
Reply

Monty was starred Monty was unstarred

Fractal the Meek
10/05/09

@Kaiser-Machead: I think the *ahem* bulk of folks aren't in this for the eye-bleeding Optimus Prime effects nor how it can *cough* raise the plot.
Reply

Kaiser-Machead promoted this comment Fractal the Meek was starred Fractal the Meek was unstarred

Kaiser-Machead
10/05/09

@MarcusMaximus: Man, Clark Gable's ears would be HUGE
Reply

Kaiser-Machead was starred Kaiser-Machead was unstarred

Kaiser-Machead
10/05/09

@Fractal the Meek: Megan Fox sucks. 'N that's all I got ta say about that.
Reply

Kaiser-Machead was starred Kaiser-Machead was unstarred

Fractal the Meek
10/05/09

@Kaiser-Machead: Oh, I'm with ya. ROTF popularity is a clear sign of our nigh end. But 3D tech, as so many pop techs before it, will be financed up front by those wanting more than just their eyes to pop out.
Reply

Fractal the Meek was starred Fractal the Meek was unstarred

Peter Shultz
10/05/09

In reply to NEWSFLASH: No One Wants to Pay More for 3D
what does: "only 33% would pay an extra (less than) $50" mean?
Reply

nutbastard promoted this comment Peter Shultz was starred Peter Shultz was unstarred

nutbastard
10/05/09

@Peter Shultz:

it means they're willing to pay up to $49 extra.
Reply

nutbastard was starred nutbastard was unstarred

Peter Shultz
10/05/09

@nutbastard:

Okay I get that 33% will pay up to $49.99 more than for a tv without 3D.

But what about the other 67%? would they pay more than $50? would they pay $0? would they pay $0-$5.

Am I the only one who is confused? I mean if it said that 33% would pay more than $50 then we would know that 67% would pay less or nothing at all. But the way it is originally said, it leaves a lot of ambiguity.
Reply

Peter Shultz was starred Peter Shultz was unstarred

MarcusMaximus
10/05/09

In reply to NEWSFLASH: No One Wants to Pay More for 3D
Here's the thing with this: We need movies/tv shows made with 3d in mind before it's at all important. Currently it just seems slapped on as a nifty little gimmick, but doesn't really add anything. 3d needs to actually add something to the experience and be an integral part of it from the instant they start filming or it's just a pointless gimmick. Hopefully Avatar will do this and lead the way for 3d in movies to actually be worth paying more for.
Reply

nutbastard promoted this comment Edited by MarcusMaximus at 10/05/09 3:30 PM MarcusMaximus was starred MarcusMaximus was unstarred

OCEntertainment
10/05/09

@MarcusMaximus: Well, if you take a look into the tech it takes to make a 3D movie, it would hardly qualify as "slapped on" by any stretch.

That being said, it is actually a very well-thought-out, planned gimmick. Heck, the CEO of Dreamworks was even recently saying that theaters need to be charging *more* at the door for 3D movies because the movie-going public hasn't shown any resistance yet.

You're right, though, for it to matter in real life is for it to stop being treated as "Oooooh! That ball almost hit me in the face!" and more like an actual element of movies, as much as color or motion is. Depth is yet another aspect of the world we see that's thoroughly unexplored in movies. And right now, it's like the world is getting a 101 class in Photoshop geeking out because they can have multiple layers. There's more than that.

A dude over at /film seems to think that the Toy Story 3D makeover did that: [www.slashfilm.com] We'll see, though.

Oh, and also, as always: get rid of the glasses. THEN you have my attention.
Reply

OCEntertainment was starred OCEntertainment was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion