£3000 for £47 inch?
I wonder how much a "non 3D" similar spec 47 inch TV would cost.
Exactly what is the difference between a 3D TV and a normal TV if you need glasses?
LG will release its 3D TV range in May, the company said today. The line-up will comprise a pair of LED TVs and a Blu-ray Disc player. The tellies are both part of LG's 32mm-thick LX9900 series, part of its micro-bezel Infinia range. Two sizes are planned: 47in and 55in. Both will feature 400Hz frame interpolation technology, …
I may be wrong, but I believe that so called "3D TVs" are 100Mhz and have a transmitter of some sort which is used to synchronize the shutter glasses. They also (I hope) have electronics that can "downmix" 3D programming to 2D so that sane people can still watch tv. Oh hold on, sane people wouldn't watch TV in the first place. Scrap that
As for being an LG, I have never had an LG product that wasn't a complete and utter piece of crap, but then YMMV
Seems the TV manufacturers have lost the plot... settling for a standard that requires active shutter glasses is plain dumb ..expensive and doomed to failure.
Want some buddies to come around to watch the football.... oh I need another 500 Euros/Dollars/Pounds on 3d glasses... stupid... no matter what the technical advantage
It is also absurd that each brand will require a different set of glasses.
Definitely a big fail!
Why do most electronic shaver manufacturers now include a "cleaning station" - so you can pay for additional cleaning solution.
Plain old red / green glasses don't cost much = low margin. Same for the "Real 3D" polarising ones - very low margin.
On the electronic shutter glasses, a margin of 35% minimum will yeild quite a bit of extra cash.
This is another Betamax / VHS gambit - 1st to get most market share wins - no one want to have several sets of glasses - Sony / Panasonic / LG / Samsung should start working on an "industry" standard now. Unlike that gambit where the US porn industry drove VHS to win, I don't think 3D porn is going to determine the winner in this case.
saw my third cinema film in 3D this week and confirmed to myself that I won't be seeing any more. Wear an uncomfortable pair of glasses that reduce the colour depth to get a 3D effect that makes my eyes physically hurt and gives me a headache.
I can't help thinking a lot of companies are going to lose a lot of money on this.
3d in the home with expenseive shutter glasses? Really? How often are they going to get broken? How long do the batteries last? I just can't see it somehow. Maybe for gaming but not for sitting down to watch general TV/
There isn't any need for such an expensive set, it's possible to retro fit perfectly good existing sets.
All modern LCDs can refresh the screen at 100Hz or more, so there is the scope to feed it a 100fps signal consisting of alternate left and right images for the 3D effect. To drive 3D shutter glasses, all that's needed is for the picture to contain two little left and right squares at the bottom left corner which are displayed on alternative frames, small optical sensors attached to the screen can then pick up which square is illuminated and send the signal switch on and off the appropriate eyes shutter.
This was all done back in the mid 80's on a BBC Micro to enable 3G wireframe graphics and steroscopic images to be viewed, and it worked well. Back then the glasses where wired to photo sensors stuck on the screen, and the effect was rather flickery as the monitor only refreshed at 50Hz. But with wireless glasses and 100Hz refresh, any TV could be a 3D TV for very little cost.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021