XPost: rec.arts.comics.strips   
   From: psperson@old.netcom.invalid   
      
   On Thu, 23 Oct 2025 09:37:02 +1300, Your Name    
   wrote:   
      
      
      
   >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").   
      
   /Consumer Reports/ reviewed HDTVs which could play "3d" (stereoscopic)   
   movies without glasses, This works by putting each image out on   
   alternate lines. Kind of like interlacing, although I do not recall if   
   that was actually used.   
      
   Their report was that this worked -- but, of course, resolution was   
   halved and so the result was clearly inferior.   
      
   It did occur to me that doing this with a 4K TV would produce 2K   
   resolution, which might work acceptably. It should go without saying   
   that such a set would play non-"3d" (stereoscopic) movies at 4K   
   (upscaled if necessary). I don't recall if a special player was   
   needed.   
      
   And this presumes that /Consumer Reports/ took the appropriate steps   
   when I wrote into them about their first DVD player article. This had   
   two problems:   
      
   1. It complained that it could not record, thus showing that the   
   Consumer's Union believed each and every one of its members was in   
   intentional and frequent violation of the copyright laws by recording   
   over-the-air programming. IOW, it thought we were all thieves.   
   2. It asserted that P&S (pan-and-scan) films were for older 4:3 TVs,   
   while LB (letterboxed) films were for 16:9 HDTVs.   
      
   I wrote them a letter covering the first point and pointing out that   
   letterboxing was not done to fit the screen, but rather to satisfy the   
   market for films that were actually all there instead of being cut off   
   on the sides. I, myself, replaced many P&S VHS films with LB VHS films   
   (and then with LB DVDs) because I only buy films I really want to see,   
   and I really want to see the entire film, not just the "important"   
   bits P&S presents. This included an essay on aspect ratios which I   
   will spare you all.   
      
   I also suggested they find someone who actually understood this stuff   
   to do the tests/reviews in the future.   
      
   So it is possible that they did, in fact, find people who had at least   
   some idea of what was going on and the review of TVs able to play    
   "3d" (stereoscopic) films without special glasses was written by them.   
   And the claim that the reduced resolution actually mattered when "3d"   
   (stereoscopic) films were watched may have been based on actual   
   comparison testing and not just "the resolution is halved, that /must/   
   be a problem" thinking.   
   --    
   "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)