By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - PS3 3DTV 299$ Is this awesome?

 

Is this awesome?

Yes 50 76.92%
 
Yes 15 23.08%
 
Total:65
crissindahouse on 24 April 2012

best deals are those where the developers is losing most money with. sony is losing a lot with displays which means GREAT DEAL that's why apple products are never good deals, apple has a huge margin^^



Around the Network
naruball on 24 April 2012
kowenicki said:
good deal...

Shows you how insanely over priced it was that they haven't been able to get a market for them and are virtually giving them away to kill off the stock. It was the only way they were going to shift them.

Though, why anyone wants to play 3d on a 24inch screen is beyond me... actually, why anyone wants to play in 2d on a 24 inch screen is beyond me.

But why should you care, Sony and Gamestop's loss is your gain. Fill your boots.

Some of us are students living in small flats. Plus, how many 3d screens are there that cost $300? In Euope we're lucky as usual, it costs £450. Simply ridiculous.



theprof00 on 24 April 2012

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/336867-33-playstation-display-compatiblity

Found this little thread regarding how to use the ps 3dtv for pc gaming. Great stuff.


Also, tv-tuner is really a waste of product nowadays. Who needs a tuner for the 12-15 channels you're not watching anyway because you have cable or hulu or netflix?

 

Oops, this is the actual link: http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=215087&st=0



thranx on 24 April 2012

my only concern is that if you use it as a pc moniter the resolution isn't very high. I thought of using my 32 in tv as a replacement moniter, and its just ugly for pc games. I went back to my 12 inch pc moniter beause it has a higher resolution and when you sit close you really notice. Unless it goes above 1080 p for computers. Other than that it sounds like a good deal.



theprof00 on 24 April 2012
thranx said:
my only concern is that if you use it as a pc moniter the resolution isn't very high. I thought of using my 32 in tv as a replacement moniter, and its just ugly for pc games. I went back to my 12 inch pc moniter beause it has a higher resolution and when you sit close you really notice. Unless it goes above 1080 p for computers. Other than that it sounds like a good deal.


1080 p is not good for pcs?

Isn't that 1900x1080? Sounds pretty high to me.

I can't remember now what my pc resolution is.

 

Found this:

Most common display resolutions in the beginning of 2012
Acronym Aspect ratio Width (px) Height (px)  % of Steam users  % of web users
SVGA 4:3 800 600 n/a 1.16
WSVGA 17:10 1024 600 n/a 2.29
XGA 4:3 1024 768 4.66 20.71
XGA+ 4:3 1152 864 0.97 1.66
WXGA 16:9 1280 720 0.68 1.54
WXGA 5:3 1280 768 0.62 1.61
WXGA 16:10 1280 800 4.48 13.57
SXGA– (UVGA) 4:3 1280 960 0.81 0.76
SXGA 5:4 1280 1024 10.39 7.81
HD ~16:9 1360 768 1.34 2.20
HD ~16:9 1366 768 6.24 17.57
WXGA+ 16:10 1440 900 8.74 6.73
HD+ 16:9 1600 900 4.52 3.55
UXGA 4:3 1600 1200 0.95 n/a
WSXGA+ 16:10 1680 1050 17.37 3.72
FHD 16:9 1920 1080 25.15 4.50
WUXGA 16:10 1920 1200 7.75 1.07
WQHD 16:9 2560 1440 0.93 0.32
QFHD 16:9 3840 2160 n/a n/a
3:4 768 1024 n/a 1.44
16:9 1093 614 n/a 0.62
~16:9 1311 737 n/a 0.32
Other 4.39 6.84

So about 93% of steam users have display settings of 1080p or less, with 1080p being 25%



Around the Network
thranx on 24 April 2012
theprof00 said:
thranx said:
my only concern is that if you use it as a pc moniter the resolution isn't very high. I thought of using my 32 in tv as a replacement moniter, and its just ugly for pc games. I went back to my 12 inch pc moniter beause it has a higher resolution and when you sit close you really notice. Unless it goes above 1080 p for computers. Other than that it sounds like a good deal.


1080 p is not good for pcs?

Isn't that 1900x1080? Sounds pretty high to me.

I can't remember now what my pc resolution is.

 

Found this:

Most common display resolutions in the beginning of 2012
Acronym Aspect ratio Width (px) Height (px)  % of Steam users  % of web users
SVGA 4:3 800 600 n/a 1.16
WSVGA 17:10 1024 600 n/a 2.29
XGA 4:3 1024 768 4.66 20.71
XGA+ 4:3 1152 864 0.97 1.66
WXGA 16:9 1280 720 0.68 1.54
WXGA 5:3 1280 768 0.62 1.61
WXGA 16:10 1280 800 4.48 13.57
SXGA– (UVGA) 4:3 1280 960 0.81 0.76
SXGA 5:4 1280 1024 10.39 7.81
HD ~16:9 1360 768 1.34 2.20
HD ~16:9 1366 768 6.24 17.57
WXGA+ 16:10 1440 900 8.74 6.73
HD+ 16:9 1600 900 4.52 3.55
UXGA 4:3 1600 1200 0.95 n/a
WSXGA+ 16:10 1680 1050 17.37 3.72
FHD 16:9 1920 1080 25.15 4.50
WUXGA 16:10 1920 1200 7.75 1.07
WQHD 16:9 2560 1440 0.93 0.32
QFHD 16:9 3840 2160 n/a n/a
  3:4 768 1024 n/a 1.44
  16:9 1093 614 n/a 0.62
  ~16:9 1311 737 n/a 0.32
Other       4.39 6.84

So about 93% of steam users have display settings of 1080p or less, with 1080p being 25%

Just my experience that tv displays don't render pc images well. If you have access to an hdtv try it out. Its not a big deal for games, but if you plan on using it as a pc oniter its hard for reading text and seeing detail. My pc screen is set to 1280x1024 which i think falls below "HD" but actually has more pixel density. Its mainly an issue with text for me. I have my pc hooked up to my projector also so i play my pc games at 100 inches at 1080p, but the picture on my little pc screen still looks better. It may just be my preference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_display_standard

 

this list the pc resolutions. Ithink the list you have posted is not neccesarily in order of highest pixel density.  1280x1024 falls higher than tv hd resolutions.



theprof00 on 24 April 2012
thranx said:

Just my experience that tv displays don't render pc images well. If you have access to an hdtv try it out. Its not a big deal for games, but if you plan on using it as a pc oniter its hard for reading text and seeing detail. My pc screen is set to 1280x1024 which i think falls below "HD" but actually has more pixel density. Its mainly an issue with text for me. I have my pc hooked up to my projector also so i play my pc games at 100 inches at 1080p, but the picture on my little pc screen still looks better. It may just be my preference.

From what I've read, it's because tvs use rectangular pixels ratios, and monitors use square pixel ratios.

rectangular pixel ratios were used in earlier hdtvs and even recently, while newer tvs tend to use square pixel ratios.



naruball on 24 April 2012
kowenicki said:
naruball said:
kowenicki said:
good deal...

Shows you how insanely over priced it was that they haven't been able to get a market for them and are virtually giving them away to kill off the stock. It was the only way they were going to shift them.

Though, why anyone wants to play 3d on a 24inch screen is beyond me... actually, why anyone wants to play in 2d on a 24 inch screen is beyond me.

But why should you care, Sony and Gamestop's loss is your gain. Fill your boots.

Some of us are students living in small flats. Plus, how many 3d screens are there that cost $300? In Euope we're lucky as usual, it costs £450. Simply ridiculous.

you contradicted yourself...  you are a student in a small flat and you want a 3d monitor to go along side your TV?  This thing is ONLY a monitor, you'd need a Tv too.

Wouldnt you be better just getting a 3d TV... half the space taken up.

and I think you are somewhat out of touch on pricing...  you can get an LG 24inch 3dtv for £299 or even a sony bravia 32inch LED 3d tv for £379. 

I don't see how I contradicted myself. I have a big tv in my living room and want a smaller one for my bedroom. Since I never watch tv, I only need a monitor for games and movies. As you probably know, tv licenses in the UK are quite expensive. I don't know a single student who watches tv live. They usually watch series and movies on netflix on their laptops or simply pirate.

£299 is still much more expensive than $299 plus 2nd pair of glasses and 2 games.



thranx on 24 April 2012
theprof00 said:
thranx said:

Just my experience that tv displays don't render pc images well. If you have access to an hdtv try it out. Its not a big deal for games, but if you plan on using it as a pc oniter its hard for reading text and seeing detail. My pc screen is set to 1280x1024 which i think falls below "HD" but actually has more pixel density. Its mainly an issue with text for me. I have my pc hooked up to my projector also so i play my pc games at 100 inches at 1080p, but the picture on my little pc screen still looks better. It may just be my preference.

From what I've read, it's because tvs use rectangular pixels ratios, and monitors use square pixel ratios.

rectangular pixel ratios were used in earlier hdtvs and even recently, while newer tvs tend to use square pixel ratios.

that makes sense. the writing just always looked a little fuzzy like it was out of focus.



theprof00 on 24 April 2012
thranx said:
theprof00 said:
thranx said:

Just my experience that tv displays don't render pc images well. If you have access to an hdtv try it out. Its not a big deal for games, but if you plan on using it as a pc oniter its hard for reading text and seeing detail. My pc screen is set to 1280x1024 which i think falls below "HD" but actually has more pixel density. Its mainly an issue with text for me. I have my pc hooked up to my projector also so i play my pc games at 100 inches at 1080p, but the picture on my little pc screen still looks better. It may just be my preference.

From what I've read, it's because tvs use rectangular pixels ratios, and monitors use square pixel ratios.

rectangular pixel ratios were used in earlier hdtvs and even recently, while newer tvs tend to use square pixel ratios.

that makes sense. the writing just always looked a little fuzzy like it was out of focus.

Yeah, lol, the whole transition this day and age was handled very poorly I think. Small print on screens, and fuzziness, and almost unreadable console inputs on SDTVs, the whole thing is ridiculous haha