[Bosox]

Originally Posted by Zimbo78

Did Andrew Castle really say Cliff Richard wearing his TOUPEE?
I'm sure he did!

He said Cliff had come wearing his duvet, not toupee (did sound a bit like toupee though I'll grant you).

[derek500]

Originally Posted by OB racks

Might well be true. But my experience is that the industry is now understanding that 3D was a step too far. It doesn't work.

Not what they're saying here.

http://www.tvbeurope.com/newsletters...d-at-wimbledon

[MKB]

Originally Posted by F1Ken

yes if you think about it. If you are broadcasting two images side by side the resolution will be lower. Surly because you have doubled the number of pictures you have halved the quality off each picture.

I'm aware of that, but I thought the BBC upscaled from 1440 x 1080 to regular HD (1920 x 1080) for 3D broadcasts, so the actual resolution of the image sent to each eye should be 960 x 1080.

With the fact that you're getting independent images for each eye, I'd have expected the experience to be considerably better than looking at a single 960 x 1080 image.

In fact, it was a lot worse than even half-HD. The crowd detail in 3D was not much better than the SD picture, whereas I get stunning pictures on blu-ray 3D, so I know my equipment is up to the job.

[IanFergus]

All this has convinced me that 3D would be a gigantic waste of money for another couple of years. I think I am being sensible to wait for a more mature product.

[derek500]

Originally Posted by IanFergus

All this has convinced me that 3D would be a gigantic waste of money for another couple of years. I think I am being sensible to wait for a more mature product.

As I already have a full Sky package and my 3D TV was only £80 more than the 2D version, it doesn't really cost any extra.

[Ginger Daddy]

Originally Posted by derek500

As I already have a full Sky package and my 3D TV was only £80 more than the 2D version, it doesn't really cost any extra.

Well, £80 in your case

[BKM]

Originally Posted by IanFergus

All this has convinced me that 3D would be a gigantic waste of money for another couple of years. I think I am being sensible to wait for a more mature product.

If I was changing TV at the present time I would look very seriously at a 3D set! They don't cost too much more and, even if I did not subscribe to 3D services, it would be nice for the odd FTA offering (such as Wimbledon)

[derek500]

Originally Posted by BKM

If I was changing TV at the present time I would look very seriously at a 3D set! They don't cost too much more and, even if I did not subscribe to 3D services, it would be nice for the odd FTA offering (such as Wimbledon)

Exactly. We changed our living room arouind and needed a bigger screen, so 3D was the obvious choice for us, as it was included in our Sky sub with no additional charge.

Also, we're saving a fortune in electricity as it runs at around 80w, compared to the 250w of our previous, smaller screen TV.

[Digifriendly]

Originally Posted by derek500

Exactly. We changed our living room arouind and needed a bigger screen, so 3D was the obvious choice us, as it was included in our Sky sub with no additional charge.

Also, we're saving a fortune in electricity as it runs at around 80w, compared to the 250w of our previous, smaller screen TV.

Could you be more specific on the model of TV as I'm thinking of changing mine?

[derek500]

Originally Posted by Digifriendly

Could you be more specific on the model of TV as I'm thinking of changing mine?

LG 47LW450U Cinema 3D.

[_SpeedRacer_]

Originally Posted by Digifriendly

Could you be more specific on the model of TV as I'm thinking of changing mine?

My dad recently bought a new Samsung - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-UE40...2002272&sr=8-1

For the first time I was really blown away by HD and he says the 3D is pretty good too. These days 3D is quite common on TVs so it's not like you are paying a massive premium.

[BKM]

Originally Posted by MKB

I'm aware of that, but I thought the BBC upscaled from 1440 x 1080 to regular HD (1920 x 1080) for 3D broadcasts, so the actual resolution of the image sent to each eye should be 960 x 1080.
.

The BBC have (so far) always switched to 1920x1080 transmission mode some days/weeks before broadcasting anything in 3D! So no upscaling required.