So the shops are predicting a significant rise in sales of 3D TV sets in the run up to Christmas and early next year as more and more 3D sets are produced at more affordable (debateable) prices.
Interesting when the broadcasters have just about completed the migration of normal TV from analog to digital system, never mind getting more people to 'adopt' HD TV.
Now comes the news that the BBC and NHK (Japan) have just successfully started tested Super HD TV (16 times sharper than HDTV via a 7680-by-4320 pixel signal rather than the usual 1920 by 1080 pixels)
Oh the test ?
It was a BBC recorded gig by The Charlatans being sent to Japan and watched by spectators in the UK on a 103-inch plasma television and in Japan on one significantly larger.
(For fans in the UK eager to hear the set, it will be rebroadcast on Thursday 30 September 6Music)
Given that one of the aims is for it to be used on giant public viewing screens, potentially in place for the 2012 Olympics, it can't be too long after that before manufacturers are selling sets for the home capable of this new 'standard'.
So the question is
- stay with normal TV
- upgrade normal TV to HDTV and upgrade to Super HDTV
- stay with HDTV for now and then jump to Super HDTV
- spend on 3D TV and spend again for Super HDTV
or any other combinations, all at your significant expense no doubt.
im sticking with normal tv
i watch so little tv and what i do watch seems fine on the normal tvs we have
i definetly dont want 3d tv because i hate watching tv with those stupid 3d glasses on, they dont sit well on top of my normal glasses and hence dont work right
to be honest i wouldnt be that bothered of i didnt have tv to watch
Just go for an hdtv, why? it is the future of television and there will be no way of getting away from it, quite alot of freeview channels will soon broadcast it...as for 3dtv...nothing but a gimmick, a complete waste of money, they seem to think that just because 3D cinema is a success and thats only because you don't have much of a choice as the 2D version only has limited screenings, leaving the 3D one the only option.
Yeah, ya gotta get HD or in a couple of years you'll be after another new telly. 3D prob a waste of money at this stage though. Just wear your glasses you got when you went to see Avatar hahaha!
Just bought a Panny 3D HDTV, SuperHD wont be used consumer wise for a long time, bandwidth just is not available in the quantities required for it, remember Sky broadcast all of their 'HD' content in less than DVD quality bandwidth already (3-5Mbps MP4) so it's already debatable if any UK broadcaster is broadcasting 'real HD' quality stuff (for comparison Blu-Ray/HD-DVD is 20-50Mbps MP4) and the Vios system in the States (and similar systems in Germany/Far East) broadcast at over 15Mbps, but they have better bandwidth.
The current UK Satellite/OTA (DVB-S2 and DVB-T2) have nothing like the available space in the transmission bandwidth for anything really HD, and yes Astra D is having some more satellite space by launching some more satellites there is still nothing like the required space available.
So I'm afraid for the moment in the UK at least we are stuck with nasty MPEG artefacts in all of our broadcasts, whether they be 'HD' or SD content.... Like broadband, the UK get shafted pretty much constantly when you look at most other industrialised countries.
Back to the point, yes We've got a Panny 3D Telly (Plasma) (uses the RealD system) but we haven't bought the specs cuz there is sodall to watch anyhow!
That is why I have a super duper sound system.
It is amazing how many people go out and buy a surround system, where the speakers are rubbish.
Same in a car....they buy a state of the art cd player and then the cheapest speakers.
The quality of picture through the PS3, added with the sound system and the telly, makes for a fantastic watching experience.
I still want one of those new LCD telly's though....now the picture on one of those is just...............WOW.
call me old fashioned but isnt analogue tv on a good crt far superior to standard or even hd digital. Just too much compression. DTV is only good for the broadcasters so they can transmit more channels down a single carrier. More choice of channels but at what cost.
The inportant thing to remember is no matter how much money you spend on a TV, the picture will only be as good as the source signal it receives. For instance, a DVD will look better on a low-end television than an analog broadcast antenna signal will look on a high-end HDTV. That is because the quality of the digital signal sent to the analog set is far superior to the analog signal sent to the digital HDTV.
The other thing is digital sets are more sensitive to weak signal problems
I have to disagree, from experience i find the tuners in a digital tv are less sensitve than a good crt. The digital artifacts, whether it is from sd, hd or dvd detracts from the viewing pleasure. Blue Ray standard is the minimum we should except from what every digital source.
Just done a quick test 32" panny crt on itv analogue aerial vs samsung 32" lcd with ITV HD on a sky HD box connected via hdmi, guess which had the more involving picture quality. The surround from the hd box was far superior but the picture on the panasonic was so vivid and just more exciting.
Er........... a basic answer............
Yes
Personally I don't have a TV, no matter how good a set up you have there's still 1000 channels of crap to watch so why bother?! :crazy: Instead of getting a new TV get an new ironing board instead, a far more practical appliance :smile2:
i love my new samsung 50" 3d much 3d content yet but more 3d b/r dvd's coming out soon.
Thats bound to be on the way as well.
i can think of at least a dozen different HD standards from 720 to 1440 or 1080 all shot in progressive or interlaced then conformed and buggered about with to fit the channel its getting broadcast or rebroadcast on...and for this they charge a premium :doh:. It's true to say that a good SD quality transmission wipes the floor against most of the digital broadcasts.
