Topic: 3D TVs

[iPPi]

So I had the opportunity this weekend to head to the local home theatre store and they were demoing the new 3D TVs that are available on the market (namely, I think Samsung is the only brand that has TVs out right now, other brands to follow shortly).

Anyway, it's kind of cool, but it's totally not an economically feasible option and I seriously think that this won't see widespread acceptance in the home theatre market.  The biggest drawback of these TVs is the requirement of glasses.  They're going for $250 each and they're pretty flimsy from what I've seen of them.  In addition, what if you wanted to have friends over to watch a 3D movie?  Are you gonna buy 10 3D glasses for everyone?  Or perhaps hope that your friends will have their own glasses to bring?  As a result, the use and requirement of 3D glasses limits its usage to small groups only of like 1-4.

Second is the content.  I think there's only one movie right now and it's Monster vs Aliens.  There's simply not enough content out to justify the cost right now.  Hell, even Avatar, which is coming out in April, won't be coming out in 3D yet. 

Lastly, the need to literally throw out your current home theatre system and replace the TV and the blu ray player (unless you have a PS3, in which case there will be a software update to support 3D) is kind of retarded.  Most people (not all) have just recently started to upgrade their TVs towards HDTVs and have started purchasing blu rays... and now there is something new that renders their own recently purchased technology obsolete.  Poor timing IMO.

Still, the technology is cool, but to be quite honest I don't think it will see widespread acceptance and use in the home theatre set up until prices drop dramatically and there's enough content to back it up.

[Pugnate]

Hell, even Avatar, which is coming out in April, won't be coming out in 3D yet.

haha there is something wrong with that.

Anyway, I do agree that the whole thing is retarded from a consumer's point of view, and as it stands now, it doesn't make sense for someone unless they are buying a new TV anyway, but adoption has to start somewhere. Over the past few years we have seen a few new technological "advances", that have been met with apprehension, especially from those already invested in earlier iterations of such technologies, but in the end, the market forces have taken care of the situation.

[Cobra951]

Yes, that's just it.  The market will have to sort it out.  Theaters have the advantage of being able to polarize projected light from 2 sources, which makes the needed glasses very cheap.  The old red/green or red/blue technology is crap.  The new TV tech requires alternating shutters in your face, aka $250 LCD glasses connected wirelessly to the TV.  I find the whole thing (as it is now) laughable, something only uber-geeks will bother with beyond the casual novelty stage.  And the prices are out of line for consumers.

The Today Show had a Samsung and also a Panasonic a couple of days ago.  They liked the Panasonic better.  Of course, only the anchor and the presenter could see the effect.  Everyone else got treated to blurry, jittery visuals, in 2D.

No, thanks.

[gpw11]

I want to know how this is going to affect prices of conventional models.  If you want to buy a 40 inch LCD in three years are you going to be forced to get a 3d model?

[Pugnate]

It shouldn't actually. Initially the prices will be naturally higher because it is a new product.

But from what I understand, to make a TV 3D glasses capable, you just have to manufacture it with a natively high refresh rate (about 120Hz).

The cost difference is actually close to negligible... so yea not a big deal.

And on the plus side, even if you don't give a flying fuck about 3D, you'll still benefit in the process with a higher refresh rate than you would have... so umm... hurrah for innovation.

Actually my cousin bought a 120Hz 22'' Viewsonic monitor a year ago, which at the time wasn't "3D capable". With a firmware update, it now is.

From what I read, you should see all these TVs be 3D ready in a year, and it won't cost you a dime, at least if you wait a few months.

However, there are 3D TVs that will cost you, and these are the ones that still in development, and don't require 3D glasses.

Of course the problem with these TVs is that you are forced to watch everything in 3D.

[W7RE]

After seeing Avatar in 3D, I was excited about 3D. I won't be on board until I don't need to wear glasses for it to work though.

[Cobra951]

To do good 3D without glasses, all I can think of is real 3D.  I've long waited to see those fabled animated holograms floating magically in a big enclosed space.  I don't think 2D holograms (like on credit cards) would cut it, but I don't really know.  That would be something.

[Pugnate]

I think the upcoming 3D TVs that work without the glasses have some special screens or something.

[Cobra951]

If it's not real 3D (i.e., if it's an illusion) then it has to deliver a separate perspective into each eye.  If you don't need glasses, then the trick has to be accomplished some other way.  Prismatic screen?  Hell, I don't know.  It seems like magic at this point.  I'd love to see them pull it off, however it's done.

[Pugnate]

This is the TV:

http://www.markstechnologynews.com/2008/05/phillips-presents-3d-tv-without-glasses.html

Talk to you guys later. Going to bed.

[gpw11]

Yeah, that's the question about the new DS as well.  3D without glasses?  There's a catch somewhere.

Edit:

also at the presentation, Philips showed models of a low-energy water purifier (aimed at developing countries) plus a flat light that until turned on, is transparent like ordinary glass.

Both those sound substantially more awesome than the TV.  I can think of some wicked applications for the light.

[scottws]

In the most recent Wired issue, they had a big article about Sony.  It seems they are pretty much throwing all of their money at 3D:  3D for the PS3, 3D Sony TVs, and 3D Blu-Ray.

Personally, I don't see it.  First, you have the glasses.  I mean you first have to get over the cost there of each pair, but aren't they mechanical devices that shutter every 120ms (I thought that 3D TVs were going to be 240Hz...)?  I mean surely they are prone to breakage.  Unless it's through some kind of LCD tech or something, which would be more reliable.

[Cobra951]

As far as I know, it is LCD technology.