XPost: rec.arts.comics.strips
From: bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com
On 10/24/25 09:27, Paul S Person wrote:
> 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.
>
With the 8 K you could get 4 K resolution which might be good enough.
With the 16 K you could get 8 K resolution which will be more than enough
for the immediate future if the USA does not go to hell in a handbasket
along with
the rest of the world. You might find work for AI in upgrading old
material to
the new standards.
> 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.
No they though we were all time shifters i.e. watching shows after
the broadcast time. I used to do that but i figured out eventually I could
never find enough time to watch all the interesting sounding stuff.
>
> 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.
Personally I am happy with a decent HD screen on the TV but lately as the
weather undergoes changes I am lucky to have one good channel out of
over 50.
Too many religious channels in most of the common languages.
Cable is beyond my present means.
bliss
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
