Consumer 3D TV system finally sorted

[ProblemSolver]

Best of all, I don't need any glasses to see in 3d. xD

[Koleax]

Have any of you actually seen these 3D TVs? Perhaps there was a problem with the demo system at Best Buy, but it did not look impressive at all. In fact it looked really cheap. Perhaps the problem was simply that it was a very large screen and if you didn't look at it exactly at the center point from a certain distance than it looked awkward or flickery. I don't expect it to be very popular.

[blackwiggle]

This technology is moving so fast.
I think anybody's previous encounters with 3D [even 1 year ago] should only be considered as a reference of a unsophisticated product, still with teething problems.

The manufactures think it's ready for prime time now,so I suppose you will have to get a good demonstration [good luck with that ] before you could make your own opinion,they should be hitting the shops around late May.

Here's a good "hands on" description of the Sony glasses and viewing experience

Glasses as they looked at CES 2009
http://www.sonyinsider.com/2009/09/1...er-3d-glasses/

Glasses as they look CES 2010.
http://www.sonyinsider.com/2010/01/1...er-3d-glasses/

[Dan Locke]

So they are shutter glasses.

The technology's evidently progressed quite a bit.

[blackwiggle]

Watch that video as well in the glasses as they look CES 2010 link
It shows glimpses of what media will be coming in 3D.

Have a look at the right at 2m.38s and again on the left at 3m.03s .
What's that I see?
It must be Wipeout HD3D!

[G'Kyl]

I Personally think having to wear glasses to view 3D will be the biggest turn off for your average consumer.

There's so many intriguing things about new technology and 3D in particular. I thought watching about 20 Minutes from Avatar in 3D was an impressive hint of what's possible. But there you have it: Like blackwiggle said, I think I will not - ever - wear glasses to watch a movie. I may do so once or twice out of curiosity, but after having seeing those scenes from Avatar I went do see the entire movie in a non-3D cinema. Glasses? No f...ing way! They are far too disturbing to enjoy a movie for what it is.

As long as 3D is little more than what Virtual Boy was for handhelds, it will never be a mainstream product.

Ben

[Dan Locke]

Considering that the Virtual Boy wasn't actually a handheld system, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

And what's so bad about wearing glasses? Anyway, the new lenticular screens eliminate the need for them entirely.

[Lance]

Have you ever tried wearing glasses over basic corrective glasses [in spectacle form]?

[Dan Locke]

G'Kyl's complaint appears to have been directed at the glasses themselves, rather than any inconvenience that would result from wearing two pairs at the same time.

[Lance]

But if 3D glasses were required, that would cause a problem for people who already wear glasses.

[SaturnReturn]

I think I will not - ever - wear glasses to watch a movie.

Some of us have little choice. Stupid broken eyes.

Anyway, I kind of agree. I can't imagine myself sitting down in front of the TV, only to have to get up again to find the bloody remote, and then again after that to find the bloody glasses...only to find someone has accidentally sat on them and broken an arm off. Then I'd have to go down the shops and buy another pair, which will probably cost a fortune in themselves.

That probably wouldn't happen to me, as I don't have kids in the family or anything, but I can imagine them getting lost and/or broken in many households. Add in the fact that you'd need a lot for a whole family, and the viewing angle issues, and I just don't think it's anything worthwhile for the average consumer.

I'd rather 3D technology stayed in cinemas. It would be a unique viewing experience and might stop so many of them closing down (many that only happens near me?).

[KGB]

Have to agree with the fact that the glasses won't take off (not in my house anyway) at home. Went to see Avatar 3D before xmas, while I thought it was a great film and stood up on it's own without the 3D aspect of it, the glasses are a pain in the arse, I have to wear glasses for distance these days so had to contend with both. Just as well it was dark as I probably looked like a right tool.

Also even though the new type are a massive improvement on what they were, they still make everything go dark around you so destroying any ambience or lighting in the room. This added to the fact that the viewers will look like the bastard children of Roy Orbison is a massive turn off.

I agree, keep it in the cinema.

[Lance]

Did Roy Orbison have any bastard children?

[KGB]

Yes and they are all watching 3D films.

[Dan Locke]

Heh, good one.

Still, there are plenty of people who have no problem with glasses (including me); I'm sure that the technology will catch on eventually.

[blackwiggle]

I've been reading a lot of opinions from AV specialists/installers on the whole 3D explosion.

After having a week of thinking who will be the most likely early 3D adopters, roughly 50% of them agree that, although the TV's set are good,it still feels a bit of a gimmick seen on anything but the truly largest screens,and that it is most likely that most people would of already recently upgraded to a new none 3D TV,and would be hesitant to replace it just for 3D.

Where on the other hand,LCD and DLP projectors don't get the almost yearly model changes TV's do,so owners of these tend to have owned them for a good few years,and,rather than spend the price of a new lamp for their current projectors [which cost a small fortune],would rather see those funds used to upgrade to a 3D projector.

They also agree that to get the full 3D experience atm, projectors are the way to go,and that this type of consumer,already having set up for projection,would not be considering the need to wear 3D glasses to view 3D media as much as a problem as TV owners would.

The LG 3D projector shown at CES 2010 is supposed to cost around UK 10k.
[But is fitted with HDMI 1.3 , go figure]
This is the only one with a price atm,and the only one market ready,other manufacturers will follow,and like when 1080p projection first appeared is initially very exspensive.
But if the prices drop over 65% over 2 years,as 1080p did from it's first models,and 75% over 3 years,then this 3D stuff might take off.

Especially with the prospect of watching the likes of this newly release IMAX 3D movie at home, when it eventually gets transferred to 3D Blueray.
HUBBLE 3D
http://www.apple.com/trailers/imax/hubble3d/

[G'Kyl]

Considering that the Virtual Boy wasn't actually a handheld system, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

No, it wasn't. I agree, It's a bad comparison. What I was saying is: The Virtual Boy was as much a better handheld as today's 3D cinema is better cinema.

And what's so bad about wearing glasses?

Normal glasses? Nothing bad about that at all! Two glasses for people who already wear glasses? Quite bad.
However, my main concern is that I found the modern-day glasses I wore to be quite an annoyance - especially not at home where I want to feel comfortable. Also, I think it was mentioned before that picture quality suffers, and here's one more: Wearing those glasses I am much more aware of "Here's me, there's the room and over there is the screen.", which distracts me from the movie. Oh, and lastly, I don't think it's a good idea sharing the viruses and bacteria of the former costumer.

Ben

[DawnFireDragoon]

Ok 3D, from a gaming perspective: this is all well and good, but what about social gamers.

I like to play with friends, as well as alone, split screen or passing the control...or just a few people hanging out, some watching the games been played....i even played RPG's with people watching or playing some of it. not reallly gonna work too well when your buddies are sat watching a crappy blurred screen, while you sit their wearing your silly glasses.

Like the Wii, innovation is always good and great for a ever expanding and competetive field, but for some people it's just not their thing and wont grab them at all....again, like the Wii.

Personally, it'll take a lot for 3D in the home environment to get me excited, even with the biggest home TV, 3D really wont be that impressive, will suffer from bad viewing angles and have obvious 'edges' as oppose to watching it on a massive cinema screen.

i don't buy into it at all at this stage. Of course i'm open to been proven wrong by something amazing, but that's my take on it at the moment.

[DrMannevond]

Must say I'm still on the fence when it comes to 3D (I should probably try to actually see something in 3D first), but there is one gaming combination I think might be really cool if done right, and that is Natal with 3D. Imagine playing something like WOW in 3D where Natal reads your face and body language and overlays the movements on your avatar.

Edit : Not to mention hours of entertainment with people kicking the crap out of their TVs on youtube

[Dark-Twisted]

*looks into piggybank*
oooh I'm getting close to that HDTV!

What? I'm saving for a 3D Stereoscopic TV now? Oh...

Is it just me or do corporations take note that consumers want a new exciting experience, but not take note that they don't want to fork out their life savings for it?