60PK950 v. 60PX950: Is the PX model (3D ready model) worth getting - given the scare amount of 3D material?
484799
The cheapest that I found the PX model for was around $2100 but I was able to find the PK for around $1400. To me it wasn't worth the extra $700+ 3D glasses in order to view the 3D content.
580061
Sorry, I didn't have time to test it this week, still no answer. But I am pretty sure it supports 3D, I can test it this week if you still need it.
1403922
I have the 3D V9 that didn't convert and I've used TurboCAD 2D since V1.7 that would convert to later 2D versions with a free V1 to V2 program! For 3D drawings that are totally realistic I have and use Chief Architect V-10! As the 2D I get from these 3D drawings isn't any good for fine drawings I switch to TurboCAD v18! While Chief Architect V-10 has the availability of a fine 2D drawing I prefer working in dedicated 2D programs! I originally learned architecture with a drafting board and a slide-rule so once I've found ways that work I use them!
2089240
My belief is that the True Depth $53.00 glasses actually do give better depth results. This in not scientific but my opinion. I would stick to the True Depth model.
2028791
I studied that one as an option as well and it was well reviewed but the Epson is LCD and also does 3D. Also the Epson is the leading brand in the category so I went with it.
382539
My picture quality is fine. My contrast is pnly 10000:1 and the3d is good well.
2032208
D. Reese,Thanks for the feedback. I more than appreciate it!I decided not to purchase the UN55B8500. I agree, 3D is worth waiting for. I saw the demo at Best Buy, and I must say, I'm pretty impressed. One a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the best), I would put the 3D experience in at about a 7 or an 8. I wasn't completely blown away, however, I was impressed enough to wait until the UN55C8000. Plus, with the free 3D Starter Kit with the purchase of the 3D TV and the 3D Blu-Ray player, I really think it makes sense to go with the 3D option. The sales guy at Best Buy said the free 3D Starter Kit promotion starts on 3/21/2010, and that the UN55C8000 should be available in early April.Thanks! D. Reese,Thanks for the feedback. I more than appreciate it!I decided not to purchase the UN55B8500. I agree, 3D is worth waiting for. I saw the demo at Best Buy, and I must say, I'm pretty impressed. One a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the best), I would put the 3D experience in at about a 7 or an 8. I wasn't completely blown away, however, I was impressed enough to wait until the UN55C8000. Plus, with the free 3D Starter Kit with the purchase of the 3D TV and the 3D Blu-Ray player, I really think it makes sense to go with the 3D option. The sales guy at Best Buy said... » Read More D. Reese,Thanks for the feedback. I more than appreciate it!I decided not to purchase the UN55B8500. I agree, 3D is worth waiting for. I saw the demo at Best Buy, and I must say, I'm pretty impressed. One a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the best), I would put the 3D experience in at about a 7 or an 8. I wasn't completely blown away, however, I was impressed enough to wait until the UN55C8000. Plus, with the free 3D Starter Kit with the purchase of the 3D TV and the 3D Blu-Ray player, I really think it makes sense to go with the 3D option. The sales guy at Best Buy said the free 3D Starter Kit promotion starts on 3/21/2010, and that the UN55C8000 should be available in early April.Thanks! « Show Less
1790368
I have the non-VR version of both, and I personally prefer the 70-300. I got the gray market version of the 70-300 for $110...that's a deal right there. You can get that AND the 55-200mm VR and come out paying the same as you would for just the 70-300mm VR. Also, the focal range covered (55-200mm = 82.5-300mm) and (70-300=105-450mm) is much greater with the 70-300 on a DX. VR is important, yes, but with my D90 and its battery grip, I don't have much trouble getting sharp shots at 300mm and 200mm at 1/60 with either of them, respectively. The size difference is considerable in your bag as well. The 70-300 is rather large. I have the non-VR version of both, and I personally prefer the 70-300. I got the gray market version of the 70-300 for $110...that's a deal right there. You can get that AND the 55-200mm VR and come out paying the same as you would for just the 70-300mm VR. Also, the focal range covered (55-200mm = 82.5-300mm) and (70-300=105-450mm) is much greater with the 70-300 on a DX. VR is important, yes, but with my D90 and its battery grip, I don't have much trouble getting sharp shots at 300mm and 200mm at 1/60 with either of them, respectively. The size difference is considerable... » Read More I have the non-VR version of both, and I personally prefer the 70-300. I got the gray market version of the 70-300 for $110...that's a deal right there. You can get that AND the 55-200mm VR and come out paying the same as you would for just the 70-300mm VR. Also, the focal range covered (55-200mm = 82.5-300mm) and (70-300=105-450mm) is much greater with the 70-300 on a DX. VR is important, yes, but with my D90 and its battery grip, I don't have much trouble getting sharp shots at 300mm and 200mm at 1/60 with either of them, respectively. The size difference is considerable in your bag as well. The 70-300 is rather large. « Show Less
213705
Sony's simulated 3d is the 2d to 3d conversion. The conversion is OK. It gives a little depth to what your watching on the TV. Obviously the REAL 3d works a whole lot better.
2109911
Thanks Christopher! I didn't know that; I'll be cautious. You know- I'm especially not sure about this one because it doesn't specifically say "MHL 2.0". From what I've been reading, 2.0 introduces support for 3D (implying previous versions don't have it). I definitely want to be able to view my phone-derived 3D content on my TV. Hmmm.
637008
It's just a more comprehensive version. There are more features in the ex version. I was iffy too until I found out about the 3D poser and perspective features. They are worth the money for the upgrade alone.
1545275
Yes, 640 "480" pixels and 1920 "1080" it is the resolution. The P or I is a little more complex but it means progressive or interlaced. Progressive gives the full frame every frame but interlaced with give horizontal frame and then the vertical frame back and forth. Progressive is much better than interlaced because it is capable of giving more full frames per second. Imagine 60 frames per second, you would get 30 horizontal frames and 30 vertical with interlaced. With progressive you would get all 60 vertical and horizontal at the same time, as the whole picture doesn't go back and forth. The end result is a more fluent picture with progressive. I'm not a pro or anything but this is my general understanding.
2094202
There have been discussions ad nauseam about the true nature of the pixel count. Sorry, I don't even want to set started, there has been so much vitriol on the web about the subject. The raw of a DP3 is about 50MB. SPP, the conversion/editing program provided by Sigma is very, very slow.
1701236
I don't know the specifics between the two but this is the information directly from thar manual 120Hz frame sequential 3D for resolutions up toXGA, 60Hz field sequential 3D for resolutions up to 480i. Not compatible with 3DXL.
1674089
Indeed there have been used photos of p920. But some of the buyers in the reviews confirmed that you actually get the p720.
1573156
Yes indeed. 3D confirmed with my Panasonic 3D Plasma. No hands-on experience with the 4K part, though.
491781
Not at all. Both 2D and 3D image quality is as good or better than anything else I've seen.