Main > Everything Else

3D televisions

<< < (16/18) > >>

Xiaou2:

--- Quote ---they'll opt for a cheaper tv without the 3D feature.
--- End quote ---

There isnt much cost needed to make an LCD 3d.  Sure, they may get away with charging extra initially... but pretty much every LCD maker will eventually add 3d so as not to get pushed out of the market.

 If 3d cost $500 to instate, then sure, only a select few mfg. would instate them into their product.  Already Ive seen announcements for 3d screened laptops.

 Many LCDs are multitouch, and how many people really care about & use that?
Its a gimmick that has much less value than 3d vision does.

 And what? Yes, 3d LCDs can also display in 2d.


--- Quote ---Most people can't keep the damn glasses on for the full length of a movie.
--- End quote ---

 Really?  Cause every single Imax movie Ive ever been to, and I dont see people taking off the glasses.  You tend to notice something like 70% of people taking off glasses for lengths of time. That would be like more than half of the people sitting near you.

 That being polarized glasses.  Not sure about flicker tech... cause I only have the master system to compare with... which uses simple graphics, and a low frame switch rate.

RayB:
I'm on the fence.

One thing though, the argument of "eye strain" is not going to be a make or break factor when you consider that for some people even just a regular FPS video game on Xbox causes them either eye strain or "motion sickness". Yet you didn't see the industry abandon that genre just because of a few sensitive or aging people.

We shall see! (pun intended)

dre-w:

--- Quote from: AtomSmasher on October 10, 2010, 02:26:39 am ---So the TV will work for only one person at a time and that person has to wear something clipped to them?  How is this better then the glasses?

--- End quote ---

Well one you wouldn't have to wear it on your face  8) and two I was saying just because there's a slider switch to adjust distance doesn't mean it could never work for a television.  It could work..  for one person.....  ok for me  ;D


--- Quote from: AtomSmasher on October 10, 2010, 02:26:39 am ---It's perfect for a small handheld device, but in order to get something similar to work in our living rooms, then it'll be some new tech we likely haven't seen yet.

--- End quote ---

Agreed.  But they need to hurry up and figure it out, before we all go blind!
http://www.televisions.com/tv-news/No-joke-3D-contact-lenses.php

ChadTower:

--- Quote from: Howard_Casto on October 17, 2010, 07:47:43 pm ---2-12% of the population are completely 3d blind... up to 70% don't get the full 3d depth perception intended by the creators of 3d imagery.  It has to do with various factors including not only vision, but eye fatigue.  Even the new 3d causes strain on the eyes.  Most people can't keep the damn glasses on for the full length of a movie.  Thus the 70%.

--- End quote ---


It sure would be nice to see some sources on these figures.

That said I fall somewhere in there.  That Harry Potter movie mentioned earlier was not great for me.  I had trouble telling what was going on in a couple of scenes where the 3D was integrated well enough that the depth was a determining factor in the action.  At other 3D movies I just don't see that much 3D.  I know some movies use it better than others but there just haven't been many movies where I walked out with the same wow factor that the people around me talk about.

RayB:
Checked out a large Sony last night. Must have been 50"
Uses shutter glasses. Had Alice in Wonderland playing. Looked quite good !

$2185 and a pair of glasses is $150. There's no reason the glasses couldn't come down on cost to as little as $30 in the future. there isn't all that much to the tech.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version