Guide: 3DTV 2010

About the author
This thread is closed for comments
19 comments
  • 3D TV is a really neat idea, but I don't know if it'll actually catch on because you have to wear funky glasses and there isn't much 3d content out yet. http://www.3dtvinformation.com/ has cool information on it too!
    0
  • I loved seeing avatar in 3D(the only way I could bring myself to see it), and wouldnt mind seeing some 3D sports. Now hopefully the price of LCD HDTVs fall due to manufacturers switching more toward 3D, I want to upgrade my DLP Samsung soon (my 1 HDMI input just died) :(
    0
  • My skepticism about 3D TV is in regard to the "30 ft" mentioned in the article. This means that for sports or movies, they will have to put the camera much closer to the action for an effect to be visible, you cannot just use a regular "zoom". To have a decent "3D" zoom, you might have to use 2 different single-lens camera and increase the distance between as you zoom (to increase the stereoscopic effect). This, of course, is a non-issue for computer generated effects because you can just render it from 2 points of view as you wish.
    0
  • Zenthar,

    Ever use binoculars with zoom? There's no variable distance between your eyeballs.
    1
  • Considering polarized light images could be sent and reflected off a movie screen, to be viewed in 3D with those polarized glasses, why couldn't an interlaced broadcast signal, like 1080i, be used to transmit such a signal to an existing hi-def TV and be seen by those same glasses?
    0
  • Considering polarized light images could be sent and reflected off a movie screen, to be viewed in 3D with those polarized glasses, why couldn't an interlaced broadcast signal, like 1080i, be used to transmit such a signal to an existing hi-def TV and be seen by those same glasses?
    -1
  • OK, let me see if I got this straight. The only two technologies that we are going to see in the meantime are the active shutter type and the polorized type. Aside from having to pay more for the active shutter glasses versus having to pay more for the polorized 3D TV, what are the other advantages and disadvantages of these two types?

    It seems to me the active shutter type has more parts that can go wrong. Are any of the major players aggresively pursuing the polorized type? Will we still be able to watch HD content on these TV's without glasses?
    0
  • 60" 3D DLP TV = ~$1200 + $150-200 nvidia 3D glasses = not that much for a huge, full HD screen, let alone a 3D one. The technology works perfectly as is. Adding another pair of glasses or two isnt too much more of an expense. I dont mind wearing the glasses, much better than some hugely overpriced, gimmicky glasses-free approach with terribly limited viewing angles.
    0
  • cborg "Considering polarized light images could be sent and reflected off a movie screen, to be viewed in 3D with those polarized glasses, why couldn't an interlaced broadcast signal, like 1080i, be used to transmit such a signal to an existing hi-def TV and be seen by those same glasses?"

    Possibly, but would it not take 4 frames to render the complete 3D image? 2 to interlace into 1 complete frame then another 2 for the other part of the 3D image to interlace? If that makes sense
    0
  • Meaning that it would change polarization or shutter every 2 frames instead of every frame. On a 120hz TV would that mean about 30fps instead of 60?
    0
  • not necessarily, the two frame each eye gets to see during its window are different, it will be the same as mono flash but clearer (less shuttering gets in tha way)
    0
  • I think 3D TV with glasses is just an interim step and wont last. If 3d is the future, its got to be without glasses. Cant envision shopping for a 3dTV in a public store and trying on each display model's glasses (ewwww....)

    However, 3D may very well catch on with the gaming community for the duration, IMHO. I noticed it was the games that had the most impressive 3D effects at CES. Also, games lend themselves to that type of 'immersion' and gamers are used to dealing with peripherals (ie, the glasses).
    0
  • Does anyone pay attention?! I was sketchy at first about the whole 3d thing until I saw a couple of films. Now I'm hooked. It can only get better from this point on!

    As far as the glasses. Hasn't anyone seen the CES 2010 reviews and especially the TCL 3d telivision that got rave reviews because you DID NOT need glasses?

    I think TCL will pull through and win because glasses get annoying when you don't have to use them at all with TCL's 3D HDTV's.
    0
  • i remember that some yers ago(maybe more than 10)fox broadcasted some programs in 3dvision,as far i can remembe, some were married with childrens,the simpson a series i cant remember wich one, and even the news were in 3d!!!!...lol
    0
  • cammmycborg "...why couldn't an interlaced broadcast signal, like 1080i, be used to transmit such a signal to an existing hi-def TV...?" Possibly, but would it not take 4 frames to render the complete 3D image? 2 to interlace into 1 complete frame then another 2 for the other part of the 3D image to interlace? If that makes sense

    Yes, that makes sense. I'm just wondering if the interlacing itself could be used to provide the stereoscopic image, so that over those 4 frames you'd get the entire image like this: left 1st half, right 1st half, left 2nd half, right 2nd half.
    My whole point in wondering about this here is to ask if we really need a new TV foisted on us when what we've already got may do the trick.
    0
  • Okay ready. First it was HD-TV, then it was HD-TV on DVI, then it was HD-TV on HDMI, then it was blu ray then it was blu-ray 1.3, then its blu-ray 1.4. Then it'll be HDMI2 and 1080p will be on the low end of the HD-TV's resos. Oh lets not forget tube hd-tv, to dlp hd-tv, then to plasma hd-tv, then to lcd hd-tv, to new plasma hd-tv, to thin panel led hd-tv. Oh wait forgot, HD-dvd to blu-ray to whatever is next (holographic disc? hhd-tv?). Yeah I am sure consumers are gonna rush out and buy the latest and greatest in tv technology. They've been treated so well in the past by the media companies relentlessness to never settle on a standard. Quick, here's my 2000 bucks.
    0
  • there's no real reason that stereoscopic tvs should be more expensive - they are basically using NO new technology in using "frame sequential" left eye, right eye.

    imo, this is the INFERIOR technology compared to polarized passive stereo glasses but the important factor is that it's CHEAP to convert existing technology to stereo.

    ANY current tv that has refresh rates of 120hz now can be converted to a 3d tv - all you need is a synched IR emitter and those glasses and the new tvs are just adding the emitter into the cabinet and throwing in a couple of glasses. if they make conversion kits available, you can change a 120hz hdtv to a stereo one... whether they will or not is a question though.

    even if they don't though, there might be a way to use nvidia's 3d vision pc kit to display the frame sequential tv format (currently, the nvidia pc kit takes a single frame that has two side by side images and then splits them up and a halfhorizontal image for left and right eyes which are then displayed frame sequentially for lcd active glasses.

    frankly, i'm really really disappointed they aren't going for polarized passive glasses (same as the realD theater glasses)... they're light and cheap and look just like it does in the movies and no need to RECHARGE! and it's conceivable to stock up enough glasses for something like a superbowl party...

    but with active, it'll probably be BYOG (oh gosh and here's hoping that the glasses from all the different manufacturers are standardized and compatible with each other).

    jin
    1
  • Those 3d glasses give you headaches after a while.... Need an example? While go watch Avatar in 3d... and you might as well bring some Tylenol with you.
    -2
  • Think about it... if you put your finger 1" in front of your face your eyes will go cross eyed to see it. In 3d movies this doesn't happen although your eyes will try to react as they would in reality. This means your eyes are doing unnatural reflexes. Then don't forget the 3d movies do unatural things like have things fly close up that would actually hit you if real. There will people that will develop eye problems from this. Forget the tylenol to many bugs to work out. When I saw 3d Avitar I sat half way to the back. My eyes really hurt. I believe sitting further back would help the strain on my eyes... yes there are sweet spots even in the theatre. My choice for 3d movies is to see the non 3d version.
    0