XPost: rec.arts.comics.strips   
   From: psperson@old.netcom.invalid   
      
   On Wed, 22 Oct 2025 19:47:55 +1300, Your Name    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 2025-10-22 03:13:38 +0000, Your Name said:   
   >   
   >> On 2025-10-21 20:51:53 +0000, Scott Lurndal said:   
      
      
      
   >>> Small gap of a few months.  I got my 4k in 2016, and a 4K OPPO   
   >>> a month later.  Both still going strong.   
   >>    
   >> According to Mr Google:   
   >>    
   >>    First 4K TV set released = 25 October, 2012   
   >>    First 4K Blu-ray disc released = 14 February, 2016.   
   >>    
   >> So, roughly 16 months.   
   >   
   >Oops! That's obviously a miscalculation ... it should actually say 39    
   >months ... or 3.25 years!   
   >   
   >> While those "get it now" fools rushed out to buy their new TV set, the    
   >> manufacturers were laughing all the way to the bank and released at    
   >> least one newer model before any discs were available.   
   >   
   >That corrected calculation means there could have been three new models    
   >of TV released before any discs (or players for that matter) were    
   >available.   
      
   How did the "3d" (stereoscopy) disaster go?   
      
   You know, the one where the theaters used polarized glasses but the TV   
   manufacturers used what I call "flicker glasses", a term based on if   
   not actually used in an early /Consumer Reports/ article on them. Note   
   that this may (or may not) have changed.   
      
   Oh, and you only got 1 pair. If you wanted to watch a "3d"   
   (stereoscopic) film with your honey, you had to fork out $125.00 or so   
   (2000 or so dollars) for a second pair. Now /that's/ family-friendly   
   -- not.   
      
   IOW, what you got for home use was /not/ the same as what was used in   
   the theater. Since "3d" (stereoscopy) is an illusion created by   
   presenting slightly different images to each eye, the tech used   
   matters.    
      
   As most people agree: they consider the 1950's version (red/blue   
   lenses) to be different from and inferior to the polarized version. So   
   those inclined to claim that the illusion is always the same may want   
   to rethink that.   
      
   The real problem, though, is illustrated by my /DVD/ of /Coraline/:   
   the disk has two sides. It also has a few sets of (small) red/blue   
   paper eyeglasses. One side of the disk (the one I watch) is presented   
   "flat". The other side is "3d" (stereoscopic). And I believe there is   
   at least one other, although I don't own a copy and don't recall the   
   name.   
      
   That's right -- "3d" (stereoscopic) movies do /not/ require a special   
   player and a special TV and glasses costing $125 a pair. The entire   
   "3d" (stereoscopic) BD/HD thing was a cynical marketing ploy.   
   --    
   "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,   
   Who evil spoke of everyone but God,   
   Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)