Do you care about 3D TV? (Page 1 of 2)

The only interesting concept is Autostereoscopic TV. There are commercialized models and the public versions should be ready soon.
Polarization or AFS (alternate-frame sequencing) are not interesting, imho.

At the moment, afaik there are some (small) problems of headaches for some people watching autostereoscopic displays. But, I guess, these things will get fixed when the product is ready to hit mass market.

Philips (which has a commercial model http://innowave.blogspot.com/2009/01...-3d-hdtvs.html ) is a bit ahead.
The technology itself is interesting : http://en.zerocreative.com/xyz.

Definitely not interested in buying a 3-D TV. They can prop up the world's consumer society on that one without me.

Actually, the WHF-ers are way behind the curve. They should be advising their forum members to wait for the technology that's coming along after 3-D TV:

www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=08787

Agreed.

My view is that this will only work really well at the Cinema or if you use a projector.  I found at the cinema the experience was best when you are concentrating on the centre of the screen and you can't really see the edges outside of your peripheral vision.

My 42" Plasma is a nice size in my Living room, but there's no way it will be big enough for that same immerse experience, which means I need to go bigger, and bigger is more expensive.  Not to mention that the first generation of 3D TV's will be overpriced anyway and probably not up to much outside of 3D material.  I for one would rather have an awesome Plasma (and I do) than a mediocre TV that plays 3D material.

I have yet to experience 3D but I imagine it would really be suited to projectors.

I certainly would not be rushing out to buy a new TV to make the most of it. I would at least give the technology time to iron out all potential flaws and also wait for the price to come down from the premiums that will be charged when the first TVs come out....

Still if 3D works as good as it is claimed it does then it may be worth paying the premium to go to the cinema every now and then. Hmmm

I think you're right, McLog. I really can't see the benefit or the lure. If people were that interested in 3D, why aren't 3D still images widespread?

I'm not personally interested, but we got a full demo set up at the store last week, it goes on sale today, and it works. Will it cause headaches during long viewing sessions? I may never know. But assuming that the technology will develop and refine, as they all do, this is probably the next big thing. Out of the gate it is pretty good. In a couple of years I expect it will be mind-bogglingly good.

Tim

Thanks Ashley, I'm the Scottish guy living in Finland who you put in touch with Johan to have a listen to his ADM9's

The Panasonics also come with glasses working in sync with the tv in some kind of shuttering mode as well I think?  It sounds dreadful to me tbh, and I've read of many people who tell that after watching a movie they have terrible headaches.

I had the misfortune to go and watch Avatar with a friend of mine, and had an awful headache at the end.  Also, the glasses were so badly made, that I had a cut across the bridge of my nose   3d is dead to me at least until it doesn't require glasses.

I don't really see the point of the companies going ahead with 3dtv, when the hdtv's they produce, on the whole, a picture of worse quality than a decent CRT from 10 or more years ago, with the majority of content that people are watching...

About resolution, certainly on a 32" set, you won't see any difference between 720p and 1080p at normal viewing distance, and I suspect that's the same on a 37" or 40" set.  It's simple science, that the eye is incapable of resolving the difference between these resolutions until you get to a larger size.