PDA

View Full Version : Why 3D doesn't work and never will.



Beechwoods
24-01-2011, 19:34
I came across an interesting article on Roger Ebert's Chicago Sun-Times blog about why 3D is so uncomfortable to watch. I thought it was worth sharing...

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html


The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the "convergence/focus" issue. A couple of the other issues -- darkness and "smallness" -- are at least theoretically solvable. But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.

But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point.

If we look at the salt shaker on the table, close to us, we focus at six feet and our eyeballs converge (tilt in) at six feet. Imagine the base of a triangle between your eyes and the apex of the triangle resting on the thing you are looking at. But then look out the window and you focus at sixty feet and converge also at sixty feet. That imaginary triangle has now "opened up" so that your lines of sight are almost -- almost -- parallel to each other

Via Boing Boing (http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/24/ebert-3d-movies-suck.html).

Reid Malenfant
24-01-2011, 19:42
Yes, i don't need to read the article to be honest as it's all trickery :rolleyes: Got to be bad for the eyes & the brain, i guess it's no surprise some people actually get sick & vomit watching it & a good proportion suffer nausea & dizziness :steam: Very similar to people that suffer from travel sickness what the eye & brain etc are attempting to put together messes people up..

Only when it can be done without glasses by some form of holographic projection or whatever will 3D really take off.

Right now i'm not interested & if that sounds like someone listening to mono in a stereo world then so be it ;)

Nice find Nick :cool: Just read it anyway ;)

MartinT
24-01-2011, 19:45
I have a lot of time for Roger Ebert, his reviews are uniformly of high quality.

As for 3D, I totally agree. For me it's a mark of a crap film as it seems to be a substitute for storyline, acting, intelligence or anything else that I look for in a film. There are notable exceptions (Toy Story 3, Avatar), but I prefer these in 2D too.

Alex_UK
24-01-2011, 20:08
I've certainly posted before that whilst I was very excited about Sky + and then Sky HD, and Blu-Ray, and a very early adopter (costing me a fortune of course!) I have absolutely no interest in 3D whatsoever - unless as Mark says, it is some sort of holographic projection and no glasses are needed. Its just the Next Big Thing to get us all to open our wallets...

aquapiranha
24-01-2011, 20:48
Agreed! Quite apart from the fact that I am unfortunate enough to not be able to 'see 3D' I think the film makers will rely on it too heavily to carry a crappy movie... IMO. I honestly think it is a fad myself.

colinB
24-01-2011, 20:49
The development of TV sales over the last 15 years is a curious one.
In the past a select few wanted a Sony tinitron while plebs like me were happy with a Bush or Goodmans, and we would keep our tvs for years.
I think it changed when widescreen came in and a continual upgrade path started to emerge . Then the competition for new tech started to go into hyper drive, especially when the Korean manufacturers came onto the scene.
Now its gone crazy. Only a short time ago LED was being pushed and before anyone got their head around it the 3d thing kicked in.
It smacks of desperation and the whole thing is getting ridiculous.

Covenant
24-01-2011, 22:10
I've certainly posted before that whilst I was very excited about Sky + and then Sky HD, and Blu-Ray, and a very early adopter (costing me a fortune of course!) I have absolutely no interest in 3D whatsoever - unless as Mark says, it is some sort of holographic projection and no glasses are needed. Its just the Next Big Thing to get us all to open our wallets...

+1
If they offered me a straight swap-my Pioneer plasma for a 3D jobby I wouldn't take it. Its a gimmick which I dont want to fall for.

Tarzan
24-01-2011, 22:45
Had a demo of 3D and was very undewhelmed l have to say- a gimmick it has to be said.

Techno Commander
24-01-2011, 22:51
I am still happy with my 36" Sony CRT. I see no reason to change it.

UV101
24-01-2011, 22:51
they should concentrate on picture quality before anything else. HD is all well and good but std def in absolute rubbish. Not only is there in interpolation issue of up scaling but for some reason the bandwidth available for "normal" channels is totally unacceptable. Pixelation on fast changing high contrast/brightness scenes like studio fireworks etc.

seriously, some poor internet mpegs are better than std def!!!

You can keep your 3D glasses, I'm happy with a decent movie in HD with a decent DTS soundtrack!!

UV101
24-01-2011, 22:52
I am still happy with my 36" Sony CRT. I see no reason to change it.

be miles better at normal tv than most!

chris@panteg
24-01-2011, 23:38
I am still happy with my 36" Sony CRT. I see no reason to change it.

That's just as well , because at 90kg you won't want to move it either :)

Great TV's those old Vega's though .

Trickie_Dickie
25-01-2011, 07:12
I've certainly posted before that whilst I was very excited about Sky + and then Sky HD, and Blu-Ray, and a very early adopter (costing me a fortune of course!) I have absolutely no interest in 3D whatsoever - unless as Mark says, it is some sort of holographic projection and no glasses are needed. Its just the Next Big Thing to get us all to open our wallets...

Resistance is futile. Futile, I tell yer. :cool:

I was happy, once.......Listening to Alister Cook and his Letter from America on Radio 4.
Oh, and Jack Hargreaves on Out of Town. :cool:

jandl100
25-01-2011, 11:14
Yep a little while back I visited my niece and her family. They were the very proud owners of a new 3D TV setup. I thought "uh-oh - this is gonna be expensive for me!" :doh:

:lol: Wot a load of crappola it is. Yes, OK, the animated stuff can be 'impressive' - but any real image is truly artificial and awful. After the animations (yawn) my nephew-in-law put on a 3D footie match recording. It honestly looked like cardboard cutout figures moving in front of a 2D backdrop. It was truly appalling.

Woo - saved myself 5k that day! :eyebrows: A decent plasma screen will keep me in movie heaven for the foreseeable future. :)

chris@panteg
25-01-2011, 11:17
Me and M8 John were talking about 3D last week ,and both agree what we want and need is more HD in 2D ,simples:)

Mark Grant
25-01-2011, 11:34
Gives me a headache after a while, so I will stick with 2D for as long as possible.

I would much rather have 2D in high bitrate HD than any 3D stuff :)

I guess that more films will be shot to make full use of the cheesy 3D effects. :eek:

Are there 3D adverts yet ?

MartinT
25-01-2011, 11:35
What we need is UHD :eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High_Definition_Television

Reid Malenfant
25-01-2011, 11:46
If these idiots pushing 3D think i'm going to replace over 700 blu rays they have another thing coming :ner:

Besides which just because a 3D blu ray is marked as such it doesn't mean that it's all 3D content. (http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Clash-of-the-Titans-3D-Blu-ray/15987/#Review)


Indeed, there are plenty of scenes and even many extended sequences that offer nothing in terms of dynamic 3D content. Various characters at various junctures appear offset from their background, but the effect is fair at best and sloppy at worst in most instances; it's not quite to the level of the bad cutout look of The Last Airbender 3D, but it's not exactly eye candy material here, either. Much of the movie looks just as flat as the strong 2D version

:lolsign:

UV101
25-01-2011, 12:09
I would much rather have 2D in high bitrate HD than any 3D stuff :)



;) yep! more bitrate I tell you not cheapo internet mpeg2 low bitrate pish they give us now!

kevjones
25-01-2011, 12:49
As far as I can see the difference between 3D and the other technologies is what it is driven by.

Wide screen TVs were invented to solve the problem of letterbox films on a 4:3 screen.

Flat screeens, well they are logistically an improvement, they allow a larger screen in a smaller space.

HD TV allows you to get a better picture on the larger screens that are now available.

LED vs LCD gives improved picture quality and motion tracking (on some sets) and less power consumption which is a good thing.

I don't see the driving force for 3D personally other than a gimmick. However if you look at all of the other technologies, they have to be introduced somewhere and then generally get improved on over time. You can't stop progress even if you can't see that it is progress.

My 5 year old daughter goes mad when an advert for a new film says it will be in 3D and she is the future!

Reid Malenfant
25-01-2011, 13:15
My 5 year old daughter goes mad when an advert for a new film says it will be in 3D and she is the future!
Something tells me the future is going to be lots of people with headaches & Opticians rubbing there hands together in glee :rolleyes:

I wouldn't be surprised if in the not too distant future that health warnings are dished out & the amount of time you are allowed to view this nonsense is somehow restricted. No-one knows the long term side effects of viewing it, but the short term effects don't appear to be at all beneficial :eek:

HighFidelityGuy
25-01-2011, 13:54
I read somewhere recently that one country (maybe Japan or China) have recommended viewers take breaks from viewing 3D TV every 30 minutes or so to prevent eye fatigue and headaches. So that kind of makes matching a movie a somewhat disjointed and tedious affair. :rolleyes:

I'm really annoyed by all this 3D nonsense. I would also much prefer that the quality of existing 2D formats be concentrated on. I heard several years ago that high dynamic range (HDR) TV's were going to be the next big thing and that actually got me excited but Dolby bought the technology and no one seems to have licensed it from them yet. :rolleyes:
For those that don't know, the HDR technology uses a matrix of LED backlights which can be dimmed or switched of in small zones. This allows the backlight in dark areas of the screen to be switched off, essentially producing an infinite contrast ratio. This allows blacks to actually be black, not dark grey and whites to actually be white, not light grey. The effect is very profound and a huge improvement over standard backlight technology. I very much look forward to this being available. Unless it already is and I missed it. :lol: I know that some TV's can vary the light output of the whole backlight, dynamic cointrast I think it's called, but HDR is more advanced.

Reid Malenfant
25-01-2011, 14:14
Unless it already is and I missed it. :lol: I know that some TV's can vary the light output of the whole backlight, dynamic cointrast I think it's called, but HDR is more advanced.
Looky here & this isn't the only make or model (http://www.philips.co.uk/c/cinema-21-9/30849/cat/) ;) Click on LED pro :)

HighFidelityGuy
25-01-2011, 14:24
Hmm, that's interesting.
From what I understand Dolby owns the rights to all dynamic backlight control. So in theroy if Philips are using this technology they must be paying royalties to Dolby. I guess Philips don't have to say they are using a Dolby license though, providing they are paying the royalties.

I beleive Dolby split the technology into two main products, Dolby Vision and Dolby Contrast. One was more andanced and generally better than the other but I can't remember which was which.
The technology itself was developed by the Canadian company Brightside who were bought out by Dolby a few years ago.

At least it looks like some TV's are becoming available with HDR. I definitely wouldn't buy a new TV that didn't have it now.

Reid Malenfant
25-01-2011, 14:30
It's the edge lit LED TVs that are more common (with worse dynamic contrast), you have to look carefully for back lit LED TVs & the general public aren't quite so keen as they tend to be thicker (the TVs & the public :eyebrows:).

MartinT
25-01-2011, 14:30
I know that some TV's can vary the light output of the whole backlight, dynamic cointrast I think it's called, but HDR is more advanced.

...or you could buy plasma and obviate the need altogether :)

HighFidelityGuy
25-01-2011, 14:37
It's the edge lit LED TVs that are more common (with worse dynamic contrast), you have to look carefully for back lit LED TVs & the general public aren't quite so keen as they tend to be thicker (the TVs & the public :eyebrows:).

A lot of people got duped by the whole LED thing. I know several people that bought them and were adamant that each pixel was an LED as that's essentially what the sales person told them. They were quite shocked when I told them that they only had a few LED's round the edge. :lol:


...or you could buy plasma and obviate the need altogether :)

That's not entirely true. I beleive the HDR LCD's have a higher contrast ratio than plasma's. Also plasma screens are slowly being phased out due to their power usage being too high to pass modern standards. I do agree that plasma's are much better than most LCD's though. Plus they prevent you from having to use your gas fire in the winter. :lol:

Reid Malenfant
25-01-2011, 15:32
That's not entirely true. I beleive the HDR LCD's have a higher contrast ratio than plasma's.
Maybe & only just, plasmas tend to have a certain small amount of current flowing continuously through the gas itself to aid in a faster response time. This is pretty miniscule tbh but you can't say that the pixels are off even though well over 1000000:1 isn't a problem :)

Also plasma screens are slowly being phased out due to their power usage being too high to pass modern standards. I do agree that plasma's are much better than most LCD's though. Plus they prevent you from having to use your gas fire in the winter. :lol:
Actually the plasmas you are refering to are already banned by the EU, they can't be imported. What you have now are much more efficient plasma screens & i seriously doubt that they'll ever be phased out.

MartinT
25-01-2011, 15:44
What you have now are much more efficient plasma screens & i seriously doubt that they'll ever be phased out.

Indeed, my Panny plasma barely consumes any more than my old Sony Bravia LCD set. As for phasing out, excellent picture quality will keep the demand for plasmas going.

HighFidelityGuy
25-01-2011, 16:03
That's not so bad then. I thought they were all getting phased out so I hadn't considered that they may still be around in a few years. I'm definitely going to hold off buying a TV for a couple of years and see what the best thing is then. Hopefully by that point all the 3D nonsense will have disappeared.

Trickie_Dickie
26-01-2011, 06:20
I remember Dad bringing home a magic box in '55 which enabled us to watch TWO TV channels in glorious 405 line black & white. (BBC & ITV) He even let me up on the flat roof at the front of our house to watch him fit the Band III aerial. Life was so simple then. :violin:

anthonyTD
26-01-2011, 14:01
Yes, i don't need to read the article to be honest as it's all trickery :rolleyes: Got to be bad for the eyes & the brain, i guess it's no surprise some people actually get sick & vomit watching it & a good proportion suffer nausea & dizziness :steam: Very similar to people that suffer from travel sickness what the eye & brain etc are attempting to put together messes people up..


Only when it can be done without glasses by some form of holographic projection or whatever will 3D really take off.

Right now i'm not interested & if that sounds like someone listening to mono in a stereo world then so be it ;)

Nice find Nick :cool: Just read it anyway ;)
Totaly agree,
but then i feel the same way about suround sound,[bear with me] its impresive the first time you hear it, but after a while you become aware of its failings and how artificial it is, then it just gets on my tits!!!
still,'everyone to their own i supose.

Anthony,TD...

lovejoy
26-01-2011, 14:09
The only product using the Dolby technologies at the moment is the Dolby Pro Reference Monitor - PRM4200, not due for release in the UK until March (currently). It is the most incredible picture I've ever seen, but then at the current US selling price of around $50,000+ then it would need to be. I don't think it was designed to go in our living rooms though, more for performing QA on broadcast and cinema release material.

I think the big difference between the Philips and the Dolby sets are that the Dolby uses a chroma signal to the LEDs, so obviously uses red, green and blue LEDs whereas the Philips uses uniformly white LEDs but illuminated to different levels depending on the content.

MartinT
26-01-2011, 14:41
but then i feel the same way about suround sound,[bear with me] its impresive the first time you hear it, but after a while you become aware of its failings and how artificial it is, then it just gets on my tits!!!

I'm with you totally, Anthony. I watch films and drama in high quality stereo but have no time for and have never felt the need for surround sound or 3D.

Techno Commander
26-01-2011, 15:08
I am more than happy watching DVDs in stereo. My speakers have good enough imaging for sounds to be in the right places and my JBLs provide plenty of bottom end.

Busybee330
28-02-2011, 17:43
I have seen quite a few 3D systems ( LCD , projector ) and I have never seen anything convincing .

Until yesterday . Anyone has seen the Sim2 3D demo at the Bristol Show ? it was very good ! a lot more like your normal vision than something coming from a Viewmaster !

Only annoying bit : priced at 60 Grands ! :)

Alex_UK
28-02-2011, 19:25
I have seen quite a few 3D systems ( LCD , projector ) and I have never seen anything convincing .

Until yesterday . Anyone has seen the Sim2 3D demo at the Bristol Show ? it was very good ! a lot more like your normal vision than something coming from a Viewmaster !

Only annoying bit : priced at 60 Grands ! :)

Well that's encouraging - apart from the price! I'll hang on a bit, I think! :eyebrows:

Reid Malenfant
28-02-2011, 19:36
I read somewhere recently (just tried to find it :doh:) that we might soon have 3D TV without the need for these active shutter glasses or any other form of glasses etc inside of a few years.

How true this is i don't know, i'm not really interested in it fullstop. But as long as new technology benefits standard 2D TV pictures then let them keep on doing whatever they want :eyebrows:

Beechwoods
28-02-2011, 19:49
I read about a 3D system without glasses a while back. It was a good article but I can't find it!

This'll have to do in the meantime :)

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/3DTV-autostereoscopic-CES,review-1490.html

colinB
28-02-2011, 20:11
Read that to. Isnt the new nintendo gameboy going to be 3d without the glasses?

Tim
28-02-2011, 21:07
I dislike it with a passion and much prefer 2D. UHD is the way forward IMO and I don't think 3D will ever catch on in it's present format.

There was a BBC Click programme a couple of weeks ago where big players like Sony and Samsung were advising it 'could' be harmful to young children's eyes during early development. If parents become aware of this, it's dead in the water I think.

MartinT
28-02-2011, 22:24
UHD is the way forward IMO

I've said the same thing elsewhere in this forum. 3D is just an excuse for crappy films that otherwise would get no viewing at all. Horrible.

Jac Hawk
14-03-2011, 00:10
Well i'm sorry guys you're all wrong, I love 3D TV, I've never actually seen one but the guy that I got my Yamaha DVD player from got one, he told me the only reason he was selling the Yamaha was that his new TV came with it's very own BR player, so I got the Yamaha for a song. All I can say is that i wish there were more nuggets looking to get the "latest and greatest" and part with their old but gold gear, he told me he paid nearly 700 for the yamaha about 5 years back, i got it for 40.

Bring on the nuggets is what i say:lolsign:

icehockeyboy
29-05-2011, 10:51
The development of TV sales over the last 15 years is a curious one.
In the past a select few wanted a Sony tinitron while plebs like me were happy with a Bush or Goodmans, and we would keep our tvs for years.
I think it changed when widescreen came in and a continual upgrade path started to emerge . Then the competition for new tech started to go into hyper drive, especially when the Korean manufacturers came onto the scene.
Now its gone crazy. Only a short time ago LED was being pushed and before anyone got their head around it the 3d thing kicked in.
It smacks of desperation and the whole thing is getting ridiculous.

I know this is an old reply, but I am new here, and it rang a lot of bells, my TV "downfall" started with the Trinitron tv, up until then it was just any old box to watch, and I jumped on the LED thing a couple of years back, but won't be doing 3d anytime soon.

chris@panteg
29-05-2011, 11:12
The development of TV sales over the last 15 years is a curious one.
In the past a select few wanted a Sony tinitron while plebs like me were happy with a Bush or Goodmans, and we would keep our tvs for years.
I think it changed when widescreen came in and a continual upgrade path started to emerge . Then the competition for new tech started to go into hyper drive, especially when the Korean manufacturers came onto the scene.
Now its gone crazy. Only a short time ago LED was being pushed and before anyone got their head around it the 3d thing kicked in.
It smacks of desperation and the whole thing is getting ridiculous.

:exactly: Good post

I think the problem for the manufacturer's is that sales of flat screens have gone through the roof and they want to keep it that way , but sooner or later this has got to change surely ? I've had my modest Bravia 32' for 4 years now , not thinking of upgrading at all at the moment and certainly not for 3D , maybe LED if its as good as they say.

Macca
29-05-2011, 11:19
My uncle is long since retired abroad and he lives in a community where there are a lot of ex pats of different nationalities.

One of his drinking budies is retired senior engineer who spent most of his career with Philips in Holland (he is Dutch, I think). Anyway he allegedly told my uncle that they had invented and perfected plasma, LCD and 3D years ago and only put them into production when sales of conventional sets tipped over the bell curve and went into decline (due to market saturation).

The new tech is released onto the market in a trickle, thus creating a new upgrade path for all of us punters, who, as noted by previous poster, used to keep the same telly for 10 to 15 years.

I also recall reading maybe 15 to 20 years ago that the old CRT telly standard would never change as the junking of literaly billions (in the USA alone) of CRT tellys would overwhelm the garbage collection and disposal network. Doesn't seem to have happened yet...

I have no interest in 3D and my Nostradamus-like prediction is that it will fade away like all silly, gimmicky novelties always do. Cabbage Patch Doll, anyone?:)

Jac Hawk
29-05-2011, 11:37
3D is great in the cinema, i went to see Thor in 3D at the local imax and it was fantastic, but in my opinion it needs that huge scale to make it work, most people have large widescreen tv's but they're just not big enough, and than after a while it can leave you feeling a little sick, people will buy it though, but to be honest i don't think it will be the next big thing, like was said in previous posts, we are used to keeping our TV's for 5 or 10 years, and most people have only just bought a new flat TV in the last 2 or 3 years

Tim
29-05-2011, 11:42
and most people have only just bought a new flat TV in the last 2 or 3 years
. . . yup, that's me and I have no intention of changing it until it goes pop and with the little time I spend watching it, that's probably going to be a long time!

3D . . . :ner:

MartinT
29-05-2011, 11:52
Yep, my new-ish 42" Panny plasma should last me a good number of years. 3D is just pants.

Covenant
29-05-2011, 11:57
The only place, apart from cinemas, where 3d is popular is pubs. I think that is just the novelty factor coupled with desperation by the landlords to get more people drinking!

Jac Hawk
29-05-2011, 12:23
have any of you seen the footy in 3D, i saw it at the cinema before Thor started, you know you get all the adverts and crap like that, well cos it was a 3D film i guess, a big part of the adverts were for sky 3D, anyway the best way i can describe it is, it's like watching little flat cardboard cut-outs of the players floating in front of the screen, it didn't make me go :wow: at all and in fact would put me off having it in my home, for me i'm happy with my 42" Philips ambilight and won't be changing it until it goes pop.

As a side not i actually use my TV as my PC's monitor because my PC has HDMI outputs, it's great cos it means that my PC is at the hub of all my entertainment in the lounge, music, tv and movies all go through the PC and I use a remote keyboard with built in touch pad to control it.

Macca
29-05-2011, 12:29
Agree - football is one area where I really appreciate High Definition - watch a match and swap between BBC1 HD and Standard BBC1 - the difference is huge. Not so noticable on Antiques Roadshow or something like that, though.

Jac Hawk
29-05-2011, 12:32
Agree - football is one area where I really appreciate High Definition - watch a match and swap between BBC1 HD and Standard BBC1 - the difference is huge. Not so noticable on Antiques Roadshow or something like that, though.

yep footy in HD is great but 3D just makes it look comical :doh:

Stratmangler
29-05-2011, 12:37
have any of you seen the footy in 3D.....

MCFC v Tottenham at CoMS was the last pro game I saw in the flesh (true 3D) - the other 3 since were all at home and in HD, which is more than ample.

I watched last night's game because I wanted to see Barcelona play the beautiful game they are noted for, and they didn't disappoint ;)

Having seen the layered 2D effect of a few movies at the cinema I imagine that the football is very similar to view - ie nothing like seeing it in the flesh, and therefore not very convincing.

Jac Hawk
29-05-2011, 12:46
It was nice to see a team embarrass man utd :) , Barca just tore them apart, and Guadiola has got a bunch of high paid individuals to play as a team, which is no mean feat, just look at Man City, i'm just waiting for the excuses to come, i wonder if they'll use the old "our domestic season is too long" excuse

WAD62
29-05-2011, 12:57
It was nice to see a team embarrass man utd :) , Barca just tore them apart, and Guadiola has got a bunch of high paid individuals to play as a team, which is no mean feat, just look at Man City, i'm just waiting for the excuses to come, i wonder if they'll use the old "our domestic season is too long" excuse

At the risk of defending City, I don't think you can call 3rd & an FA cup a failure...shall we discuss the Geordie bottlers ;)

Cricket in HD is an absolute must for me now, particularly with the high speed slow motion etc.

icehockeyboy
29-05-2011, 13:04
:exactly: Good post

I've had my modest Bravia 32' for 4 years now.

You have a 32 foot tv screen???????
' being feet, " being inches! :lol:

Sorry, couldn't resist! :)

Jac Hawk
29-05-2011, 13:14
At the risk of defending City, I don't think you can call 3rd & an FA cup a failure...shall we discuss the Geordie bottlers ;)

Cricket in HD is an absolute must for me now, particularly with the high speed slow motion etc.

Have you seen how much cash City have spent? and there trophy case is none the heavier for it, so in that respect they've accomplished squat, plus there players are always in the news wanting to leave, what i was trying to say was that Guadiola has done a great job at Barca by being able to make a TEAM who play for each other and not just themselves, something which has eluded City.

As far as the Toon are concerned we have an owner who thinks he knows more than the manager when it comes to picking a team, who has no ambition to see NUFC get better and better and who sells our best players, it's plain to see his only goal is to sell the club and doesn't want to loose out in the sale, he has replaced our best manager for years with a "yes man" Alan Pardew, to be honest i'm surprised we did so well given the circumstances.

Stratmangler
29-05-2011, 13:25
At the risk of defending City, I don't think you can call 3rd & an FA cup a failure...shall we discuss the Geordie bottlers ;)

Cricket in HD is an absolute must for me now, particularly with the high speed slow motion etc.

Joint second , dontcha know ?
A mere technicality that goal difference thing.......:lolsign:

Jac Hawk
29-05-2011, 13:47
Joint second , dontcha know ?
A mere technicality that goal difference thing.......:lolsign:

So the joint first losers then :ner::lolsign:

Stratmangler
29-05-2011, 14:05
So the joint first losers then :ner::lolsign:

If you want to look at it like that....
Last time we played Barcelona we beat them at home.
The only goal was scored by Martin Petrov.
http://www.mcfc.co.uk/news/match-reports/2009/august/barcelona-v-city

Mind you, it was only a friendly......:lolsign:

Thing Fish
29-05-2011, 16:07
I have flicked through this thread as 3D is a gimmick and doesn't really interest me but I am surprised no one has mentioned OLED yet ( I may have missed a reference) It looks amazing!

As yet 'Organic LED' is still in the pant soilingly expensive stages but will I suspect be pushed with the release of SHD (super HD).

It is ultra thin and the depth of colors is just mind boggling.

We will see it on the shelves soon I think.

WAD62
31-05-2011, 08:45
Joint second , dontcha know ?
A mere technicality that goal difference thing.......:lolsign:

I do you a disservice sir...:lol:

WAD62
31-05-2011, 08:54
Have you seen how much cash City have spent? and there trophy case is none the heavier for it, so in that respect they've accomplished squat, plus there players are always in the news wanting to leave, what i was trying to say was that Guadiola has done a great job at Barca by being able to make a TEAM who play for each other and not just themselves, something which has eluded City.


Guadiola has continued the tremendous work Barca have been doing for some years, when Johan Cruyff sets up your youth system it's going to be good.

But Barca have the highest wage bills in world football, one of biggest if not the biggest debts, and they own their own TV rights, so they're not really a shining example of economy either...;)

We'll see how City's billionaire owners cope with the forthcoming financial constraints, now that will be interesting. :)

lovejoy
31-05-2011, 11:09
3D is dying a death in the cinemas. Revenues have been trailing off since Avatar and hit rock bottom recently with 'Mars needs Moms' so the cinema industry is already looking at the next big thing.

That next big thing, depending on who you speak to is either 4K super HD, or higher frame rates - 48fps or even 60fps. 4K doesn't really make a lot of sense unless you're close up to a big screen - IMAX will certainly benefit from it (except that there are sadly only a couple of true IMAX screens left in the UK), but high framerate makes a lot more sense, especially as it will make 3D look a whole lot better and cause less headaches as well. James Cameron has been quite vocal about this format and The Hobbit and Avatar 2 will both be shot in at least 48fps.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/james-cameron-urges-industry-use-173577

HighFidelityGuy
31-05-2011, 11:16
3D is dying a death in the cinemas. Revenues have been trailing off since Avatar and hit rock bottom recently with 'Mars needs Moms' so the cinema industry is already looking at the next big thing.

That next big thing, depending on who you speak to is either 4K super HD, or higher frame rates - 48fps or even 60fps. 4K doesn't really make a lot of sense unless you're close up to a big screen - IMAX will certainly benefit from it (except that there are sadly only a couple of true IMAX screens left in the UK), but high framerate makes a lot more sense, especially as it will make 3D look a whole lot better and cause less headaches as well. James Cameron has been quite vocal about this format and The Hobbit and Avatar 2 will both be shot in at least 48fps.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/james-cameron-urges-industry-use-173577


Thats interesting. I'd much rather things went in the direction of increased resolution, frame rate and/or colour depth etc. On the subject of colour; does anyone know if current HD formats still use the colouring book format where much greater bandwidth is given to the luminance information rather than the chrominance? If so I'd really like to see that improved to increase the crispness of colour reproduction.

lovejoy
31-05-2011, 12:10
As I understand it 'Deep colour' only exists in the HDMI 1.3 specs and onwards at the moment and there are no formats making any use of it as yet. SD television is effectively 8-bit colour and HD broadcasts are 10-bit (assuming that your entire chain from camera down through the editing suites are 10-bit and you're not watching upscaled SD).

Deep colour is way beyond the colour gamut of current displays anyway and 10-bit is pushing it for many, so HDTV/Bluray is as good as you can hope to get through them.

tannoy man
01-06-2011, 16:30
I was working for Nippon Electric Glass making Cathode Ray Tubes in Cardiff when Plasma/LED took off, up
until then they were earning a fortune, they repaid a 250 million UK goverment loan in five years when the initial plan was to repay in ten.
Running costs were huge Gas and Electricty costs of 6 million a quarter. They were talking about investing 100 million on site to make LED screens but invested the money in Japan instead.
Production continued, but I could see that stock levels were getting huge, the writing was on the wall and I took voluntary redunduncy.
One year later the plant closed, 1200 British jobs gone for ever.

Try to support your country, buy UK made goods if you can.

MartinT
01-06-2011, 17:42
I was working for Nippon Electric Glass making Cathode Ray Tubes in Cardiff

Were they supplying NEC in Telford? I worked for NEC and used to visit that factory regularly. It was a very sad day when it closed as there had been such excitement and high hopes when it had opened.

Even their PC/laptop factory in Livingstone didn't survive.


Try to support your country, buy UK made goods if you can.

I do when I can, but when buying a car, computer or other electronics it's pretty much impossible.

tannoy man
01-06-2011, 19:12
pretty much impossible to buy anything British, but at least some of us are trying
I remember when Peugeot closed their UK factory, people kept on buying its cars, because most people dont give a shit about other folks jobs.