Glad you like it. Take care of it and make offerings to the appropriate gods, because they don’t seem to be making 3D sets much anymore. I’m sure in another few decades it will be back.
Antenna Viewers May Lose TV Channels With Video Codec Change
- Thread starter Antenna Man
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 33
- Views 5K
The JS9500 is clearly a prosumer model. The MSRP for a 65" model was around $5,000!
As if the market was flooded with desirable 3D titles.
Absent support for Dolby Vision and up-to-date HDMI and HDCP specifications, there's some serious trade-offs.
The public doesn't seem to agree. This also exacerbates viewing angle issues with its IPS display.
Most better TVs today do that at 120Hz.
One should never employ the term "in its era" when touting something as timeless.
Whether it was 3D glasses or the lack of compelling content, an overwhelming majority of the buying public clearly decided that the trade-offs weren't worth it.
Other than 3D and being curved (of arguable value), a modern QLED or OLED TV perhaps surpasses in most popular respects.
If Samsung had delivered on their Evolution Kits and not decided to be hardnosed about Dolby Vision, the story would be a little happier but they didn't.
Most of the best movies of the last 12 years are best experienced in 3D.
Dolby Vision is a placebo. The improvement over HDR10 is barely noticeable and in a double blind test even most videophiles wouldn't even be able to tell the difference. It sure as hell isn't worth giving up stereoscopic 3D support for.
Normies sit around on badly placed furniture watching their televisions mounted up too high on the wall with the crappy built in speakers and constant distractions going on all around them. What's your point? For those who want a proper setup with seating positions at an optimal viewing distance and directly centered in front of the screen you can't beat the curve.
Again, who cares? I have a 240Hz monitor and while there is *some* improvement going from 60 to 120 FPS, it is not nearly as drastic as 30 to 60 FPS. It's worth sacrificing 120 FPS for stereoscopic 3D.
If you're going to play games in pancake mode then you should be playing PC games on the Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 monitor anyway -- the 32:9 aspect ratio combined with up to 2,000 nits of brightness in HDR mode easily makes it the best display for PC gaming ever made.
Nope, because "in its era," TVs had terrible input latency. This display was different and unique for its era because it had very low input latency. Many of these manufacturers' TVs have since improved on the input latency front, but it's still better than a lot of TVs currently on the market.
That's a false narrative too. 3D was rather well adopted in the early 2010's before 4K came along and the display manufacturers conspired with Hollywood studios to kill off 3D in the home. Display manufacturers wanted to shill higher resolutions and HDR and Hollywood studios wanted an exclusive tech you could only get by going to theaters. Anyone with a nice 3D capable TV had no reason to shell out for a movie ticket when they could watch the 3D Blu-ray instead, and Hollywood did not like that.
MP3s are more popular than FLAC, DVDs and bitrate starved HD streaming is more popular than Blu-ray, sh!tty bitrate starved re-encoded a billion times MPEG-2 cable TV channels are more popular than backhauls and the H.264 master feeds on C-band. iTunes is more popular than HDtracks, and McDonald's is more popular than Culver's. WWE is the top rated TV show and "90 Day Fiance" pulls better ratings than scripted TV shows. Bitcoin is more popular than Monero and bastardized "American style" hard shell tacos are more popular than authentic street tacos. The Switch is the most popular console right now.
I couldn't give a damn about what's most popular. What's most popular is usually sh*t.
Clearly availability isn't related to goodness. According to Empire magazine, all but three of the twenty best 3D movies of all time were released more than 12 years ago. The most recent to appear in the Top 20 was Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse (2018). Over half of the Top 20 were animated. Three of the movies were from the mid-1950s.
You could even more easily say that 3D is a placebo given how little of the best 3D movies were "filmed" in 3D (as opposed to rendered or synthesized).
This is clearly made up.
How many theater seats fit in the "sweet spot" of a 65" curved IPS TV?
Yep, because we're no longer "in its era". You're promoting your candidate a whole generation later. rtings gives the JS9500 an 8.0 overall score.
And here we are several years later and many of the 3D movies don't make it to home video as 3D.
A case has been made that you don't care about what's good -- just as long as it is 3D.
...and then cut off its head. VictoriaFTA Didn't you get ANY clue from the fact that his user name is "Harshness?"
There's usually a release a month give or take. Many of them are 3D for the sake of 3D rather than critically acclaimed films.
Last 3D blu ray I bought was avatar years ago. The tv don't support 3d but I noticed my 4k disc spinner does
I don't care about the opinions of some boomer magazine. Why are britbongs judging something produced by a different country anyway? Like they're the movie experts. Might as well have Canadians judging the best tacos.
42 out of the 50 highest-grossing films of all time are available in, and greatly enhanced by, 3D. Including the #1 movie, of which the 3D was the primary draw. Why would I want to watch Avatar flat?
List of highest-grossing films - Wikipedia
Buying a TV that can't properly display the best version of 42 out of the biggest 50 films of the 21st century is a non-starter.
It's called post-production. Most of what you see in the final product isn't "filmed." This is a ridiculous argument.
CG is a placebo given how little of the best CG movies were "filmed" in CG.
Who cares? Who has a theater in their house? Why would I want 50 strangers coming over to my house to watch a movie?
It's already been established that the normie cattle are woefully ignorant of how much better their movies could be if they were to see them in 3D. Popularity != quality. I made my point so comprehensively with my examples I see you flat out ignored them with your retort, indicating that the argument was so strong you knew you had nothing to refute it. We don't need to retread this ground again.
You seem to be quite the bigot. Anyone that doesn't use a 3D TV to watch all their movies in 3D is a "normie" and people from other countries can't handle arithmetic.
Primarily because most of the population never had a 3D TV and if they saw a 3D film, it was in a theater where people weren't huddled in front of a mid-size television. I enjoyed most of Avatar but the only movie I've ever seen in 3D is Captain EO (and it wasn't "all that" for me).
It seems pretty likely that Top Gun: Maverick is likely to breeze past Avatar so I wonder how you precious JS9500 does with IMAX format.
As if IMDB is the be-all and end-all of ratings or collecting of box office receipts numbers and certainly doesn't contemplate what percentage of the population has or continues to view those films in 3D versus "flat".List of highest-grossing films - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
For you it probably is but for the rest of the population, they don't seem to give a tinker's dam. Clearly 3D isn't the make or break attribute that you insist that it must be.
Labeling things seems to be your shtick. It doesn't make your arguments any more credible.
It certainly doesn't contribute to the "physics" of the movie in the overall "suspension of disbelief" if the effects are gone overboard to pop out of the screen.
A viewing party of three or larger could be a problem for such a TV. Of course if you have bunk beds stacked in front of the TV, it might be easier. Perhaps your household is relatively small so the sweet spot isn't a problem.
If they're uncomfortable wearing 3D glasses, is it really better? While a non-HDR/WCG TV can do about 34% of the visible palette, the JS9500 hits just 54%. Do you insist that the color reproduction isn't important? Perhaps that's why there are so many animated films in the 3D list.
I submit that there's another important inequality: 3D < must have.
I seem to recall a bit about UHD potentially enabling much better 3D, even without glasses. No more headaches.
But it seems the bloom was off the rose for 3D by then and there was no business case to pursue that technology.
FWIW, I wish my Sony 900 supported 3D, even though I have little interest in 3D. I’d have at least given it a try at home. Poor experience in the theatre- bad seating.
And now we’ll never see the Ronco Holosuite.
But it seems the bloom was off the rose for 3D by then and there was no business case to pursue that technology.
FWIW, I wish my Sony 900 supported 3D, even though I have little interest in 3D. I’d have at least given it a try at home. Poor experience in the theatre- bad seating.
And now we’ll never see the Ronco Holosuite.
A couple years ago, CHCH-TV in Hamilton Ontario tested a 1080p MPEG4 sub channel.
It only showed a test pattern.
Out of my 5 TVs, only Samsung would scan in the channel.
Not LG or Panasonic.
It only showed a test pattern.
Out of my 5 TVs, only Samsung would scan in the channel.
Not LG or Panasonic.
It typically comes down to when the TV was manufactured. If it was built before 2008-9, there's not a great chance and even if the hardware could handle AVC, the firmware may not.
