 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'd wait a couple of years for the tech to improve.
Most require shutter glasses (TV shows alternate left/right eye pics, glasses mask out the correct eye), which are expensive extras if you have more than 1 person watching the TV.
Can also give you a headache due to using average inter-pupil distances.
There are some that use lenticular lenses on the screen and so do not require glasses, but have a very limited view angle (they work kinda like those rulers/cards you had as a kid where you angle it to see different pictures).
I have heard they are quite good for 3D sports but otherwise a bit of a novelty.
It will take them at least 5 years to figure out how to make good tv programmes in 3D, depth of field and quick edits etc the main stay of 2D tv/film is a big no-no for 3D, unless you want your audience to throw up.
All been said I expect most new tvs to be "3D" ready, much like they where "HD" ready over the last few years.
cheers.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Personally I think the current range of 3D TVs are a bit of a gimmick, however, Toshiba has developed 3D TVs that don't require you to wear the stereoscopic glasses. They work pretty much the same way as the Nintendo DS 3D works.
Currently the screens are small, but it'll only be a matter of time before they're able to produce TVs with the same size panels as we're all used to now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There is always the problem of generating the x number of images required for multiple view angles, and more importantly transmitting them to your set. Heck 3D tv required a spec update on HDMI just so it can carry the extra bandwidth (you'll need v1.4+ spec cables for full 1080 3D).
What we really want is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEhCSaCekDI
But you'd need a massive room behind to house all the projectors, and it doesn't/didn't do moving stuff! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
the next gen 3d tv's will be available by late next year.
and according to reports you will not need the glasses.
do not ask me how it works but it is on the way.all the major tv makers were talking about it at the last tech show in L.A. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
watch the football in 3D in one of the sky pubs... it is a different experience, wouldn't say it is better at the moment...
the slowmo's are great, but really action gives ya a massive headache... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *-and-KCouple
over a year ago
Back of Beyond |
Thought this was about something else entirely 
However look at it this way.
LCD/Plasma came on the market, once market was almost saturated-
in came Hi Def lcd, once the market was almost saturated-
in came LED tv, once the market was almost saturated-
in came 3D TV with glasses, once the market is almost saturated-
in comes the next 3D tv with the ability to watch without wearing the glasses.
See a pattern here? all marketing ploys to get you to out and buy the latest 'must have' consumerism at its best.
The next generation of 3D tv without glasses is already undergoing testing by the manufacturers now. give it another 12-18 months for the market to be ready and they will be released. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Lenticular lens technology (3D without the glasses) has been around for over a decade now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenticular_lens
It works like those child rulers:
http://www.promo-wholesale.com/Upfiles/Prod_j/12-x1-1-4--Hd-Lenticular-Ruler_20090815602.jpg
The problems are narrow viewing angle, and the multiple images required for different angles. These problems are not insurmountable but there is the issue of bandwidth plus the huge expense and complexity of shooting 3D. (I'm sure many of you saw the making of David Attenborough's 3D Dinosaurs thing over the holiday week).
Give it 5 years and it will be standard on most new sets.
However don't expect a lot of good content for a long time, it's like back 100 years when they where learning how to do cinema for the first time!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Thought this was about something else entirely
However look at it this way.
LCD/Plasma came on the market, once market was almost saturated-
in came Hi Def lcd, once the market was almost saturated-
in came LED tv, once the market was almost saturated-
in came 3D TV with glasses, once the market is almost saturated-
in comes the next 3D tv with the ability to watch without wearing the glasses.
See a pattern here? all marketing ploys to get you to out and buy the latest 'must have' consumerism at its best.
The next generation of 3D tv without glasses is already undergoing testing by the manufacturers now. give it another 12-18 months for the market to be ready and they will be released."
Very good observation there BK ...I have always said the same..one ommision though..it wasnt that long ago when they were telling us that the old square tv's were a thing of the past and we 'had' t get the 'new' (curved) widescreen ones...they had only been out five minutes when the 'new' flat widescreens came out..then after only a year we were told scrap them and buy the new plasma/lcd's...
The problem was that when the older style square tellys needed an upgrade you could chuck them in the bedroom...no chance of that with those great big silver. grey things...so...up the dump they went, all in perfect working order.
Its so sad, but we live in a throw away world...'dont repair it..throw it away' 
Thats one of the reasons nothing is built to last. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Maybe I'm getting old but I just don't see the attraction with 3D. Sure it's good at the cinema for some films but it doesn't really add that much to the whole film experience.
Watching 3D football means listening to non A list comentators and at some grounds the viewing angle is so low to show the depth you can't really see a lot of the game.
It all just seems pretty gimmicky to me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I'm going to go out tomorrow and spend £3500 on a 3D tv.
As long as it can play my Betamax tapes, Philips Laser Discs, Digital cassettes,is compatible with my Square British Satellite Broadcasting dish and it can hook it up to my Amstrad emailer phone.
I might order it using my Rabbit mobile, one of their 'phone zones' is outside the shop.
Dunno how i'll get it in the back of my Sinclair C5 though.
Retailers love me.
Because i'm a fucking moron.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *-and-KCouple
over a year ago
Back of Beyond |
"I'm going to go out tomorrow and spend £3500 on a 3D tv.
As long as it can play my Betamax tapes, Philips Laser Discs, Digital cassettes,is compatible with my Square British Satellite Broadcasting dish and it can hook it up to my Amstrad emailer phone.
I might order it using my Rabbit mobile, one of their 'phone zones' is outside the shop.
Dunno how i'll get it in the back of my Sinclair C5 though.
Retailers love me.
Because i'm a fucking moron.
"
Th elaser discs were fun while they lasted though, as to the biggest load of dross--The Squariel |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Until the tv companies start to put on some better programmes than the rehashed shite that is being broadcast at the moment, I'd not spend another penny on any hardware.
Until then I'll stick to my 20" Philips 210 black and white valve set. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Its so sad, but we live in a throw away world...'dont repair it..throw it away'
Thats one of the reasons nothing is built to last."
One of the reasons I left the TV trade after 20 odd years - no fucker wanted to spend the money on repairs and they went to Currys and bought a cheap pile of shit made by Matsui, or Sansui or any other name that the Koreans could make up which sounded Japanese.
Now that I've been out of the trade over 10 years, there is once again some good repairable kit out there, but I'm too far gone and wouldn't have a clue where to begin repairing it  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *harpDressed ManMan
over a year ago
Here occasionally, but mostly somewhere else |
It took me a long time to figure out what I disliked about 3D media.
Initially it was the fact that filmmakers would use any excuse to exploit it in a really tacky way (oh noooooo, the shark's coming right for us!!!!  ), but now it's more that it still doesn't look real.
It looks like a series of 2D images are being projected at once - it's like watching a series of overlaid photo's, not an actual vista.
...if that makes sense. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It looks like a series of 2D images are being projected at once - it's like watching a series of overlaid photo's, not an actual vista.
...if that makes sense."
That is the case of stuff that is turned into 3D from a 2D source. For example the recent Alice in Wonderland film, so it looks like those cardboard theatres with 2D cut outs at different distances. Avatar was filmed in proper 3D and probably why it cost around ~$300 million  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *harpDressed ManMan
over a year ago
Here occasionally, but mostly somewhere else |
"
It looks like a series of 2D images are being projected at once - it's like watching a series of overlaid photo's, not an actual vista.
...if that makes sense.
That is the case of stuff that is turned into 3D from a 2D source. For example the recent Alice in Wonderland film, so it looks like those cardboard theatres with 2D cut outs at different distances. Avatar was filmed in proper 3D and probably why it cost around ~$300 million "
Oddly, those two are the ones I've seen in 3D, and they both looked equally "upscaled 2D" (for want of a better phrase) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It could be your inter-pupil distance, if it is not the same as the "average" then the 3D effect is diminished and can look odd.
Avatar is the best film to-date in my opinion that uses 3D rather well, not perfect but not things poking in your eyes all the time 3D. But anything over 1.5 hours for me is to long and gives me eye ache. Especially the halo effect where the brightness falls off to the edges of the glasses.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Thought this was about something else entirely
However look at it this way.
LCD/Plasma came on the market, once market was almost saturated-
in came Hi Def lcd, once the market was almost saturated-
in came LED tv, once the market was almost saturated-
in came 3D TV with glasses, once the market is almost saturated-
in comes the next 3D tv with the ability to watch without wearing the glasses.
See a pattern here? all marketing ploys to get you to out and buy the latest 'must have' consumerism at its best.
The next generation of 3D tv without glasses is already undergoing testing by the manufacturers now. give it another 12-18 months for the market to be ready and they will be released."
sorry to say this and about your meesage,just picked it,,,
but search holographic tv,and youl see the next gen tv that is coming,we in europe and america are way behind,
think the holograms in star trek and all futuristic tv/films,,,they are on the way and being made now,,  so il be saving my cig money(when i give them up,for the next 5 years) just to get one |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *harpDressed ManMan
over a year ago
Here occasionally, but mostly somewhere else |
"It could be your inter-pupil distance, if it is not the same as the "average" then the 3D effect is diminished and can look odd."
My eyes are too close together?? You cheeky fecker!
Just cos I have 17 toes... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
