XPost: rec.arts.comics.strips   
   From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   On 2025-10-22 15:40:03 +0000, Paul S Person said:   
   > 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:   
   >   
   >  plodding settlers bringing up the rear -- that is, the rest of us>   
   >   
   >>>> 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.   
      
   3D in every form has never really been popular, partly thanks to   
   needing silly glasses of one type or another. There are new computer   
   monitors that do 3D without needing glasses, which might move up to   
   bigger TV screens, but again it's really just a gimmick to part fools   
   from their money, and there will be hardly any actual content to watch   
   (other than perhaps a re-release of the few awful old 3D movies, like   
   "Jaws 3D").   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)