XPost: rec.arts.comics.strips   
   From: psperson@old.netcom.invalid   
      
   On Fri, 24 Oct 2025 13:19:56 -0400, Cryptoengineer   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 10/24/2025 12:27 PM, 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.   
   >>    
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >When was this? Time shifting TV has been legal for over 40 years:   
   >   
   > From Wikipedia:   
   >   
   >"Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417    
   >(1984), also known as the "Betamax case", is a decision by the Supreme    
   >Court of the United States which ruled that the making of individual    
   >copies of complete television shows for purposes of time shifting does    
   >not constitute copyright infringement, but can instead be defended as    
   >fair use."   
      
   Thanks for answering a question I raised elsewhere.   
      
   Of course, with /today's/ Supreme Court, that could be overturned at   
   any time.   
      
   Personally, I still regard it as theft. But that's just me.   
   --    
   "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)