What's Up With The Lack Of 3D Broadcasting
- Thread starter inazsully
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 158
- Views 14K
- Status
I have 3 plasmas, and love them. But, you can definitely feel the heat radiating when walking past any one of them, even the newest one, which is a 2011 model (60" ST series.)
Hogwash!
What tests are these? Panasonic rates their 55" plasmas at around 400 watts. Leaving a 100 watt bulb on in a closet is going to make the closet hot.
Power consumption is not a problem with any TV. Look at the energy guide on any TV. A 60" plasma cost less than $40 a year to run. There are barely any refrigerators that run less than that.
How can you take the word of any sales person at any of those stores? The TV manufacturers are making more and more TVs with 3D capabilities whether the consumer wants it or not. If you want a model without 3D it's going to be closer to an enrty level model. Don't get me wrong, entry level TVs are great TVs. I guess my point is, 3D has not hit the breaks. I'm not even a 3D fan but I'll bet I follow the TV industry better than any sales person from a big box store.
Hogwash? The 55" Panasonic plasma you refer to will use $40 per year of electricity. As far as watts used. According to the review at CNET the 55" plasma we're talking about uses 250 watts, not 400 and when comparing to a light bulb, a plasma TV converts much more wattage to light production than a light bulb. I am certainly not saying that a plasma is as power efficient as a LCD or will it run as cool, especially a LED lit LCD. I do feel that in todays modern household full of light bulbs, computers, refrigerators, micro wave ovens, DVR's, AV Receivers, speakers, etc, the electricity cost and the heat output of a 2012 plasma will not even be noticed.
My numbers come from a manual that Panasonic makes available on their website (model TC-P55GT50). I cannot imagine why the manufacturer would overstate the power requirements.
Panasonic has been very careful not to offer the power consumption numbers as part of their website's technical specifications but the number can be found in the manual.
As for efficiency at various wavelengths, conservation of energy dictates that no matter whether the energy emitted is in the ultraviolet, visible or infrared spectrum, if you capture it in a closet, it will all end up as heat.
Rest assured that if you leave even a 100W lamp on in a closet (or a substantially enclosed cabinet), it will get much warmer than ambient.
Exactly. It started in the 50s , then in the 80s in the 20th century and now in the teens of the 21st century. So by somewhere between the 2030s and the 2040s , we should see it back again. OF course by then it will be called full Hologram tv instead of just 3-D.
3D, that new 100 year-old technology that has been rejected at least twice
From 1953
[youtube]0b96x2Qdm5E[/youtube]
As to the gimmick angle, one of my favorite lampoons came at the hands of SCTV
[youtube]ZjUTReWUTaQ[/youtube]
[youtube]4u4tTFEF_XE[/youtube]
[youtube]iEnCKEfSgUM[/youtube]
From 1953
[youtube]0b96x2Qdm5E[/youtube]
As to the gimmick angle, one of my favorite lampoons came at the hands of SCTV
[youtube]ZjUTReWUTaQ[/youtube]
[youtube]4u4tTFEF_XE[/youtube]
[youtube]iEnCKEfSgUM[/youtube]
Exactly. It started in the 50s , then in the 80s in the 20th century and now in the teens of the 21st century. So by somewhere between the 2030s and the 2040s , we should see it back again. OF course by then it will be called full Hologram tv instead of just 3-D.
Have a friend that already has patents on it(hologram) and it's being used at concerts.
Hard to believe anybody would compare today's 3D with the 3D of 20, 40, 50 years ago. Is that how you compare cars? How about those 20 and 30 year old cell phones or laptops, satellite TV providers, or high definition? Technology marches on and what was 20 or 30 years ago is hardly worth comparing to today. Not to mention that we're talking about 3D for TV's not movie theaters, and they are making lots and lots of 3D TV's right now.
There is no difference in 3D of 1915 and today in the way we have to watch it. If it requires glasses, it will fail for the same reason it failed to have staying power for the last 100 years.
Best comment I've seen about 3D. "If I knew that 3D was gonna be such a big deal I would have gotten that boob job ten years ago," Charlize Theron.
Well, I have to say that some of those old 3D films were pretty awful. Red/green filter glasses are the worst IMHO. Next would be linear polarizers... Tilt your head a little bit and the two channels gets mixed. Circular polarizers are not half bad, but I did see some movies using them a long time ago and nothing significantly better since.
- Status
