Glasses-less 3D TV by Xmas? Not likely, says 3D TV exec Toshiba may be gearing up to release a no-specs 3D TV in Japan by the end of the year, but Philips' 3D TV development partner reckons we will have to wait longer. It doesn't reckon any vendor will have one out before 2013. So says, Maarten Tobias, CEO of Dimenco, a firm founded by four former Philips people and which is now …
Advertise that you have a better version up your sleeves to be relased in a couple of years - enough to put the majority of average punters off and only the hardcore or affluent will drop money on a relatively expensive 3D TV now (compared to a non-3D).
Meaning with no return on 3D boxes firms will shelve future development.
Still, it was a neat idea.
Having seen the LG attempts at no-specs 3D imaging, I wouldn't even think about buying this kind of thing. The lenticular (why does FF offer testicular as a spelling?!?) lenses result in a multitude of sweet-spots, but if you're off by just a couple of inches, the effect is rather nauseating.
Saying that, all these "3D" TVs are crap as far as I am concerned - I want some actual depth to the images, rather than the "magic eye" images that don't require you to cross your eyes.
Right now, 3D tv is incredibly un-attractive. Who wants to buy one and have to spend another grand getting enough glasses to be able to watch things in 3d? At 200$ a pair, inviting friends over becomes prohibitive.
Besides, the actual value-add is nowhere close to the premium they are asking for.
Was in Japan for 3 weeks over summer. There were lots of demos of 3D TVs, with active and passive glasses. Although people were having a look, there didn't seem to be any interest in buying from anyone. It wasn't the issue of the cost of the glasses so much, but the fact that you need them, and not seeing the benefits of 3D except the gimmick.
Lenticular style glasses-free 3D displays were also shown, but the problem with them was the small sweet-spots where you actually got the 3D, and the lots of sh*t-spots where you got the same effect as the childrens moving image toys.
I did see one demonstration of a glasses-less TV that was very impressive (partly because it wasn't overdone like the recent 3D films), but I don't think that it was near production.
..P0rn!
Whatever media format Grumbleware picks will win out. We've seen it before with VHS and Beta. It's only a matter of time before Ben Dover's finest is thrusting into our living rooms and then we'll know 3DTV is here for good. Then, we'll be getting specless 3D monitors so we can download the stuff onto our computers and, before long, Apple will release the iPriapism for all company big-nobs to get a grasp of.
Can't wait....
3D programs strike me as far to difficult to create to become main stream. For example, how can a 3D camera zoom-in? In 2D you just need a special lens to zoom-in and give the impression of getting closer to the object. But with 3D you will also need to change the angle of vision of both of the cameras, i.e. the cameras will need to move further apart by an impractical distance.
3D will fail as soon as people realise that they have been had by the HD con. We've all forked out on new HD TVs, but the programs are still just as crap.
is that most people have only just (in the last 2 to 3 years) just spanked there wallets upgrading to LCD .... and we have to replace them again? Jo Consumer won't do this. I'm a techie as most of us are here and I personal won't do it! Do I want 3d? Of course! Do I want to throw away a perfectly good £1500 LCD? F*&K NO!
Now, the producers of these 3d TV's are asking non-techie, Jo Consumer to do this? Snow ball in hell chance!
They rammed LCD down our throats, let them suffer the result of that....
The only reason for the shutter glasses is that it's (mostly) just a firmware upgrade on an existing 120Hz TV - so the incremental cost to the maker is bugger-all.
Then they can sell you a new 3D-TV at a nice price and screw money out of you for the $200/pair, only work with our brand, until somebody sits on them, glasses.
Large screen polarizer TVs using the same light, cheap, comfortable glasses you have at the cinema are much more pleasant to watch, but they cost more to make.
So you are selling your 3D TV at 2-3x the price and relying on the sales moron in Dixons/Best Buy to explain to the customer !
I have no doubt that at IBC in Amsterdam next week you will be able to see all the latest 3-d technologies. You can also see me, showing how nothing's changed since the Victorians invented the thing in the 1840s... Hall 10. Apparently I'll be the one in the top hat.
As others have indirectly pointed out, the only real reason for 3-d displays is, basically, to sell more displays. It's stereoscopic, not 3-d (you can't see behind things), and it'll last as long as it did twenty years ago, forty years ago, sixty years ago, a hundred years ago...
It does occur to me that one reason it's become suddenly popular with film makers could be that the cgi stuff - and particularly the animated cartoons - are made with virtual 3-d models. If you're going to render it once for a flat film, it's a piece of cake to render it again from three inches to the right.
Bob, all a 3-d camera needs to do to zoom in is, er, to zoom in. You *might* want to move the axes of the lenses but it's not necessary. There's a whole question of the grammar of the image, of course, but I'm not going there.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
