I bought a Samsung plasma a couple weeks ago. The picture quality is pretty nice.

But say what you like, but the image retention still makes me nervous. I really don't even understand why image retention happens, I never had image retention like that with any of my CRTs, and both technologies excited phosphors to generate their colors.

@glugglug I didn't intend to suggest that the glasses do the shuttering, it's the projector that does. Ideally, there should be two projectors, but in reality, a single projector system is a lot less expensive and there's a lot less to screw up too. When a theatrical projector easily costs a hundred thousand dollars and up, it's easy to see why the theater owner would want to avoid buying another projector, the flicker is only slight, but I think it might be causing fatigue for some people. The old film setup had to be two projectors, but digital projectors can handle it with just one unit.

I think the most recent design for theatrical projection now uses circular polarized light, left hand and right hand. If you notice, you can rotate the glasses with respect to the normal of the screen, the intensity doesn't shift like it used to with older polarized 3D projection. I think circular polarization works better for blocking light intended for the other eye.

@(Unverified) It doesn't look like a Canon lens. As far as I can tell, the lens doesn't say Canon, just the camera does. There are companies other than Canon that offer Canon EF mount lenses, both manual focus and auto focus lenses.

I guess it's an interesting idea, but you need the buttons to face the user. I don't see how this accommodates zooming, the user is supposed to be holding the lens with one hand (and controlling zoom, focus or even aperture), the camera with the other hand. I'm not convinced that this makes a more stable or ergonomic arrangement, but if the design excels at those tests, then I hope someone tries marketing it.

And there's a reason why the camera strap mount is on the top of the camcorder. Unless this designer fancied the idea of hanging the camera upside down, which still sounds awkward and a waste of time flipping it up right for a quick shot.

I didn't mean to say that Pixar wasn't doing the job, but I just don't see what Cameron can do to top that if Pixar hasn't already done it. The quotes from this article suggest an oversized ego or he's ignorant of what's already done.

If Pixar's movies don't get people to wanting to use the glasses, then I don't see what Cameron can do that's sufficiently more interesting than that.

3D is interesting, but the fatigue of whatever the glasses do really needs to be addressed. I think part of it is the technology that alternates shutters with one digital projector rather than two projections is what gets me. It makes 3D more available, but it's kind of annoying, the image is more flickery. I hope good 3D displays can be made such that the glasses aren't necessary.

My experience with EXMOR chips has been pretty good. I'm holding my judgement until I read about actual experiences with it.

The XDCAM EX codec allows 35Mbps in its HQ mode, but it's also MPEG-2, which tends to need 50% more data to encode the same image at the same quality. AVCHD with a good encoder might do pretty well with 24Mbps.

I have a surround sound system, but I'm not committed to the concept. If I didn't prewire my home theater room for surrounds (because I built it), I probably wouldn't bother with surrounds. My computer system will probably never have surrounds. However, I have decent speakers and receiver. Probably not much that would get an audiophile interested, I'm not out to make that kind of person happy anyways, it's my system, not theirs.

It seems like Motorola has sold off a lot of business units in the last decade. I expect that in another decade, they will have sold off everything including their own logo, hopefully to someone with more competent management, but I'm guessing not.

They milked the Wii cow pretty well, the price drop will probably help them, but really, I don't see why there isn't an HDMI model coming, if he's not weaseling or lying, then Nintendo is stupid. Nintendo is probably doing some preliminary work on a console two generations beyond Wii, to not do so is shortsighted, product development is supposed to be that forward-looking.

From what I've seen, pretty much every TV now sold has HDMI. It would be a great upsell opportunity. The Wii has games that I want, but not badly enough to figure out why it didn't work with my projector. Also, Wii video signal just doesn't seem to upscale well for me. Something that can at least render 720p would be nice, even though it's the same low polygon count on the models, it would still clean up the look a lot.

I think using a chart like that to illustrate video resolution is a pretty disingenuous way to promote higher resolution technology. Most people don't keep the video small if it's low res, they scale it to fit the screen. I'm pretty happy with 1080p projected.

I've seen UHDTV, it is fantastic, though the camera lenses looked like the biggest holdup to better video, the lenses didn't seem quite up to the job.