Okay, so every manufacturer seems to have one for sale these days. My question...So? I have seen an I-Max Film in 3-d and some horror move in the same medium. Cute, but do I never felt the need to have the experience in my home. Just me?
3-D TV
- Thread starter Thelonius1
- Start date
I don't want my TV to look like real life... its TV, fer-cryin'-out-loud! For that matter, I prefer watching movies on the internet (hulu) over cable. If I need higher resolution, I'll go outside and experience some realistic reality with surround sound.
BTW. Shouldn't this be in "The Barbershop?"
BTW. Shouldn't this be in "The Barbershop?"
I'm there with you...besides, aside from some sports, am I really going to watch CNN in 3D
...even movies for that matter? Not me.
It's not just you. I have a friend, a Director of sales for Sony Canada, and he says the biggest current hurdle for selling the 3D hardware is not enough titles/product to stimulate demand for 3D televisions. Cost is a close second. Personally, I'm not interested in them at the moment either. Time will tell if they will catch on but right now, they're more novelty than substance. However, the same was said of wireless phones so we'll see in the next few years. The good news is that 3D capable units are helping to drive down the cost of "conventional" HD televisions.
Wow! Talk about a forehead smacker!!
On topic, I almost never jump into new technologies. I like to wait until it's confirmed that it really is something I want, and the prices come down.
I'm not opposed to watching 3D content in my home but I'm certainly not in a hurry for it. I bought my first large LCD just last year and I want to get at least 5 years from it before I even think of something to replace it.
What does any of this have to do with "General Shaving Discussion?" Maybe this thread should be in another forum.
Just sayin.....
Just sayin.....
I remember when CDs came out thinking what was the big deal? Phonographs sounded just fine. And, I was right in that I believe that I could have been happy with the audio quality of phonograph records forever. Even when I started listening to CDs instead of phonographs, I didn't at first think it was that big a deal.
But, a funny thing happened with time. At first, I listened to both phonograph and CDs, listening progressively to a higher percentage of CDs. Finally, there came a time when I had not listened to a phonograph for some time, and put one on the turntable... it sounded scratchy and inferior. I didn't like it!
While these comments about 3D, to the effect that it's not a big deal, are right, and I really mean that they are spot on, they might be just as far off as my opinion in the phonograph vs CD issue in the long run.
I think we should consider the way our brains process, and brain plasticity (rewiring with differing inputs.) At first, our brains don't know what to do with the 3D input. But, once they start effectively using 3D input, once we see enough 3D input, my prediction is there will come a time when we find 2D bland.
Just like phonograph records.
But, a funny thing happened with time. At first, I listened to both phonograph and CDs, listening progressively to a higher percentage of CDs. Finally, there came a time when I had not listened to a phonograph for some time, and put one on the turntable... it sounded scratchy and inferior. I didn't like it!
While these comments about 3D, to the effect that it's not a big deal, are right, and I really mean that they are spot on, they might be just as far off as my opinion in the phonograph vs CD issue in the long run.
I think we should consider the way our brains process, and brain plasticity (rewiring with differing inputs.) At first, our brains don't know what to do with the 3D input. But, once they start effectively using 3D input, once we see enough 3D input, my prediction is there will come a time when we find 2D bland.
Just like phonograph records.
I'm glad I made your day.Wow! Talk about a forehead smacker!!
Thank you for bringing this up Thelonius1! I think 3D tv is ridiculous! First off just look at the glasses you have to wear!
Could you imagine having to wear these all the time just to watch t.v? And I think it's just another thing to lose besides the remote! As well as sit on and break. I don't really even like 3D movies that much so I certainly wouldn't buy one of these t.v's!
That being said, if they take over they take over and it will be years before that happens and until then I'm happy with my 40" and 26" LCD T.Vs
Could you imagine having to wear these all the time just to watch t.v? And I think it's just another thing to lose besides the remote! As well as sit on and break. I don't really even like 3D movies that much so I certainly wouldn't buy one of these t.v's!
That being said, if they take over they take over and it will be years before that happens and until then I'm happy with my 40" and 26" LCD T.Vs
There are models of 3D televisions that do not require glasses. Toshiba has one underdevelopment as do other vendors (such as Samsung) with working prototypes. Nothing yet for actual purchase.
Moved to The Barber Shop
My comments though on the topic as well. I was at costco the other day and looked through at the 3-D TV they had (through the glasses) and DAMN, wow, that was a great picture. Would I want to spend that much money on a TV yet? The answer is no, but it was a great picture!
My comments though on the topic as well. I was at costco the other day and looked through at the 3-D TV they had (through the glasses) and DAMN, wow, that was a great picture. Would I want to spend that much money on a TV yet? The answer is no, but it was a great picture!
Last edited:
until holographic displays are a reality all 3D display technology will require glasses
the way the current TVs work is they make use of the 120Hz refresh rate to display alternating right eye and left eye images while the special glasses use shutters to block each eye in sync with the TV... now someone might hear "shutter glasses" and instantly think of horror stories of people getting headaches from eye strain but that is from older models that worked at 60Hz refresh rates... with twice the refresh rate you get drastically reduced chance of eye strain and headaches
theaters of course work on the same principals but with different execution (special screen and projectors and polarized glasses)
I find 3D in the movies to be distracting. I spend more time examining and assessing the 3D than I do what's going on in the movie.
I would not buy a television in 3D. If my television had a 3D option, I would keep it off.
I would not buy a television in 3D. If my television had a 3D option, I would keep it off.
Sorry to contradict you but there are prototype HDTVs that do not require such glasses. Here is an old ZDNet article on that touches upon that...
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/home-thea...hitachi-has-a-prototype-display-for-that/1724
Manufacturers such as Panasonic, Toshiba, Samsung are gearing up for their imminent release. There are numerous current articles on the 'Net that discuss these new 3D TVs.
Just coincidentally, I ran into an article about 3D on iPhone and Android which uses an overlay screen instead of glasses. And, the screen still responds to touch, as you would expect.
Maybe, the world 3D will eventually inhabit will lie elsewhere than TVs and theaters...
Bringing 3D To Your Android Soon Glasses-Free
http://www.androidtapp.com/bringing...mpaign=Feed:+PlanetAndroidCom+(Planet+Android)
Maybe, the world 3D will eventually inhabit will lie elsewhere than TVs and theaters...
Bringing 3D To Your Android Soon Glasses-Free
http://www.androidtapp.com/bringing...mpaign=Feed:+PlanetAndroidCom+(Planet+Android)
Also Nintendo is coming out with and has already shown off the 3DS, basically their DS now in 3D without use of glasses.
http://e3.nintendo.com/3ds/
Personally, I am looking forward to watching Univision in 3D.
Here in the uk the price at the moment seems too silly to think about it, sky is running the ad every commercial break at the moment, and selling some deals to get folks interested, but it cant hide the fact that it still looks a costly package.
I'm not at all interested in 3D. It's too much of a gimmick and it seems like manufacturers are desperate for something new after Blu-Ray failed to post the numvers they hoped for.
Aside from lack of content, how much does 3D really add to the viewing experience? For me, not much. It's cool in a way and really worked for Avatar, but my guess is that it'll amount to little more than cheap gimmicks with 99% of content, sort of like the horrible "colorization" fad we got in the 1980s. Further, there's a huge library of great material that's not in 3D. Buying a 3D set would be pointless for the old movies that I love. (I love some new ones, too.)
Also, the glasses are awful. I wear glasses and hate to put another pair over them. I didn't like contacts when I had them and I am *not* going to buy prescription 3D glasses. Yes, glasses-free TVs are in development, but like I said, the content is dismal and I'm not going to pay a premium when 99% of what I watch is 2D.
The next step in home viewing will probably be 4K. The resolution is breathtaking and, yes, I'll pay for that. One benefit is that a lot of old movies can be converted into 4K, unlike a phony conversion to 3D. I'd pay extra for discs of my favorites in 4K and the format lends itself to new digital cameras.
Also, I get the feeling that Apple might help push 4K through. The Retina Display on my iPhone, while not 4K, is about the best thing I've ever seen. My guess is that extremely hi-rez will roll out in the rest of Apple's gear over the next few years and then the rest of the computer industry will follow suit. Since computers and video content are so intertwined today, a move to 4K will be a lot more natural than 3D.
Aside from lack of content, how much does 3D really add to the viewing experience? For me, not much. It's cool in a way and really worked for Avatar, but my guess is that it'll amount to little more than cheap gimmicks with 99% of content, sort of like the horrible "colorization" fad we got in the 1980s. Further, there's a huge library of great material that's not in 3D. Buying a 3D set would be pointless for the old movies that I love. (I love some new ones, too.)
Also, the glasses are awful. I wear glasses and hate to put another pair over them. I didn't like contacts when I had them and I am *not* going to buy prescription 3D glasses. Yes, glasses-free TVs are in development, but like I said, the content is dismal and I'm not going to pay a premium when 99% of what I watch is 2D.
The next step in home viewing will probably be 4K. The resolution is breathtaking and, yes, I'll pay for that. One benefit is that a lot of old movies can be converted into 4K, unlike a phony conversion to 3D. I'd pay extra for discs of my favorites in 4K and the format lends itself to new digital cameras.
Also, I get the feeling that Apple might help push 4K through. The Retina Display on my iPhone, while not 4K, is about the best thing I've ever seen. My guess is that extremely hi-rez will roll out in the rest of Apple's gear over the next few years and then the rest of the computer industry will follow suit. Since computers and video content are so intertwined today, a move to 4K will be a lot more natural than 3D.
These both rely on the fact that there is a single user that can directly manipulate the display. Every glasses-free 3D TV has been found to have a narrow effective field of view, inferior 2D performance and does not work well for multiple people.
One big problem right now is that LCD displays don't support many head positions when used with the shutterglasses... can't lean your head on the side of the couch or somebody's shoulder without the image going dark. 3D plasma doesn't have that problem, at least.
I have yet to see any movie that is improved by being presented in 3D. I know the mainstream is going to force it through, though. The film companies and hardware companies all have too much invested in finding a new way to sell you another TV and the same movies over and over again.
