Click here to enter. Complete this survey and win R5, cash or other great prizes. JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding. You are using an out of date browser.
It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser. Thread starter bewer Start date Jan 28, Joined Jul 30, Messages I'm considering a 3D LED set and noticed the various types of glasses available. Any advise as to which ones work the best? Some of my own thoughts so far: 1 Non-powered glasses: seems very convenient as they do not run out of power half-way through a movie.
However, it seems that your viewing angle is limited with these and that you must sit directly in front of your set to get the true 3D experience. Am I too negative here? Replaceable battery type glasses. These new glasses are incompatible with Samsung's 3D TVs. In our tests the Bluetooth sync works well, and overall 3D performance has improved compared to last year on the model we tested see the upcoming UND review for more.
In our previous early tests we prefer the picture quality of active 3D to passive overall. Samsung's move is a pretty obvious response to the inclusion of four pairs of passive, unpowered 3D glasses with models like the Vizio XVT3DSV and LG LW series --the latter just started shipping in conjunction with a major advertising campaign.
We expect similar pricing moves by companies like Panasonic and Sony, which like Samsung focus exclusively on active 3D. It's worth noting that no TV maker's active 3D glasses are compatible with any other's, so you can't use those cheap er Samsung glasses with your Panasonic plasma. According to the press release:. They are promoting it as the next great leap forward, not quite so big as the jump to HD but far bigger than any of the other features you list in response to my comment.
Then again.. Quality editing! And yet no one on the planet earth cares about 3-D at all. The general public is more enthusiastic about TVs that produce odors to make shows more immersive. Some will like it and want it and use it often, others seldom and others will have not desire for it.
The old analog TV standard was i minus a few line that were tossed out. The 3D was very effective. The old analog system was i as you state minus the 42 inactive scan lines for the vertical blanking interval that gave time for the electron beam to go from the bottom right of the CRT back to the top left. Our p digital TVs take a p source i. In the case of 3D there are two line frames one for each eye. The passive 3D FPR system throws out half the horizontal lines to provide continuous 3D with passive glasses.
When we do we, we will test and perform extensive comparisons and report our results. We also plan to have untrained observers chime in on whether they feel there is a big visual difference or not.
As far as I am concerned, aside from the hard math, the jury has not seen the evidence. Like other competing technologies each will have their advantages and disadvantages and they will need to be studied and evaluated. We believe our readers come here for accurate information and testing. Username or Email Address. Remember Me. Stay connected. Recent Posts. Home Theater Drivers.
0コメント