• Gizmodo
  • bestmodo
  • lifehacker
  • kotaku
  • Profile logout login

#televisions

Gizmodo

Share Cancel
   
Upload an image | Add an image URL
×

logging in
  • FAQ. Include # before tag:
  • #tips,
  • #dealzmodo,
  • #rumors,
  • #broken,
  • #iphoneapps,
  • #apple,
  • etc.

New York, 2:47 AM
Tue Nov 10
54 posts in the last 24 hours

FR | IT | DE | SP | JP | AU | BR

Gizmodo Team

Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com

Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter

Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter

Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter

Senior Contributing Editor:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter

Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter

Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner

Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Chris Jacob
Email

Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email

Heroes and Friends

Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com

SUBSCRIBE TO Gizmodo RSS

New: Breaking news and daily top stories via email
9515 Subscribers
Gizmodo
  • 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 ×
    Image of fuchikoma 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
    Image of MarcusMaximus 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
    Image of N@tedog 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
    Image of MarcusMaximus 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
    Image of phunnyballs 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
    Image of yantelope 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
    Image of ceilingFANBOY 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
    Image of Navin R Johnson 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
    Image of dry-roasted-peanuts 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
    dry-roasted-peanuts was starred dry-roasted-peanuts was unstarred
    Image of masteroffm 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
    Image of collectiveego 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
    Image of drew-opolis 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
    Image of reddingofish 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
    Image of k-napped 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
    Image of Sockatume 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
    Image of Mark Wilson 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
    Image of reddingofish 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
    Image of Dr. H. F. Danger 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
    Image of OCEntertainment 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
    Image of Kaiser-Machead 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
    Image of MarcusMaximus 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
    Image of Monty 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
    Image of Fractal the Meek 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
    Image of Kaiser-Machead Kaiser-Machead
    10/05/09

    @MarcusMaximus: Man, Clark Gable's ears would be HUGE
     Reply
    Kaiser-Machead was starred Kaiser-Machead was unstarred
    Image of Kaiser-Machead 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
    Image of Fractal the Meek 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
    Image of Peter Shultz 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
    Image of nutbastard nutbastard
    10/05/09

    @Peter Shultz:

    it means they're willing to pay up to $49 extra.
     Reply
    nutbastard was starred nutbastard was unstarred
    Image of Peter Shultz 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
    Image of MarcusMaximus 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
    Image of OCEntertainment 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 threads | All threads | Show hidden threads | Show featured threads only | Start a new discussion

Login

Enter your username and password.

Please enter a username.
Please enter your password.
logging in
Login via Facebook | Sign Up | Forgot Password?

Reset Password

Please enter your email address to have your password reset.

Please enter your email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
requesting password reset

Register

Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.

Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ and legal terms.

Please enter a username.
Please enter a password.
Please confirm your password.
Passwords are not identical.
Please enter a valid email address.
registration sent, waiting for reply

Submit Your Comment

You don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.

See how your address will be displayed in the Comment FAQ.

Please enter a valid email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
logging in

Login with your Facebook or Gizmodo account.

Sign up here.



  • Archives
  • About
  • Advertising
  • Legal
  • Help
  • Report a Bug
  • FAQ
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.