b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 10638083 (Thread)

# I can't tell the difference either
Unless it's that people with HD TVs can't stop talking about their TVs
(, Sun 18 Dec 2011, 23:26, archived)
# You really need the source to be good...
Discovery is a swine for upscaling.
Bbc hd always pumps out quality, The top gear polar special was stunning, even at 720p....
Our leap wasn't as big as the yanks, they raved about it because their old analogue system was dire, it looked like long play vhs.
(, Sun 18 Dec 2011, 23:28, archived)
# still not as bad as 3D, though
(, Sun 18 Dec 2011, 23:39, archived)
# Depends on the system...
Active looks better than passive, but the glasses are still quite pricey for active, My computer monitor is passive 3D, but has hdmi on it, some of the ps3 games look amazing, but you do find yourself bending over trying to peek around corners.
(, Sun 18 Dec 2011, 23:47, archived)
# all it does is give me a headache
/faulty eyes
(, Sun 18 Dec 2011, 23:49, archived)
# The active ones are better for the fact you can lie down whilst watching it...
The passive ones you have to sit with your head straight to see the 3d effect.
I must admit though, I have a very slight turn in my right eye. (no it's not bozz) and without my glasses on they give me a head ache. (I have a prism that corrects the turn)
(, Sun 18 Dec 2011, 23:59, archived)
# only one of my eyes works
so i'm pretty much screwed umtil someone invents me a robotic eye
(, Mon 19 Dec 2011, 0:05, archived)
# steal one from a monkey or something.
(, Mon 19 Dec 2011, 0:16, archived)
# if i could, i would
(, Mon 19 Dec 2011, 0:29, archived)