Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 5 Jul 2010.
obviously the glasses will the the uber lose of 3D (again).
they will probably be reduced to contacts at some point, depending on whether polarized or shutter technologies become standard. Obviously wont work with shutter.
Why do we need such expensive shutter glasses while In the Cinema all you need is some cheap plastic glasses. And why do we need to pay 1000 euro more for the same LCD with different software?
3D has been around for decades and never really taken off. Even now with so many company's pushing it (in our faces) it is still struggling. Not to mention it gives a lot of people a headache. I don't see this becoming an essential purchase for a long while yet.
As a glasses wearer, it'd be annoying to have another pair to wear just for watching TV.
Added to which, TVs aren't really large enough to make full use of 3D - it works better in cinemas because most of your FOV is taken up by the screen, which makes the 3D more "believable". In the living room, the TV takes up a much smaller part of your FOV, so the 3D effect isn't as great.
It's all a flash in the pan - 3D's been coming and going in the cinema for the last 50 years, and I remember the last time it was popular, back in the 80s. Although possibly my experiences of 3D were ruined by the crapitude that was "Jaws 3D"
I can see that in 5-10 years the tech will be improved, may not require glasses and cost less. Unfortuneatley it will likely need all 3 of those things to happen before people start to take it seriously, and only then if the TV content is good. Theres some football games (soccer) that have started to be shown in 3D at my local pub. I went along to see it for a game and thought it was pretty good, but not worth the cost. And those were filmed with avatar-style 3D cameras. 90% of content will just be converted to 3D at a later date and so far it hasnt looked good, even with the millions been thrown at the tech by the movie industry.
I tried watching a Samsung 3D tv in Currys the other day just to see what it was like. Within about 20 seconds of putting the glasses on I had a spltting headache (I was perfectly fine before I put them on) where as at the cinema it take 30 mins to an hour before I start to get a headache when watching 3D films.
I wasn't all that impressed with what I saw either so I definitely won't be buying a 3D tv.
I'm interested in the future of 3D TV's, but not really the present. What I like is that the technology will eventually be in every new TV due to the relatively simple task of incorporating it, so 'dabbling' in a bit of 3D from time to time will be of no extra cost.
But as for going out of my way now to get 3D? Only for the 3DS.
The 3D cinemas use (that only require those cheap plastic glasses) is called Circular Polarization and it requires a special type of silver screen to be projected onto.
You can actually buy a home LCD TV with this type of technology built in, JVC make one called the GD-463D10. However it has two big problems: 1) It's hideously expensive (starting around £7000) and 2) 2D video looks awful on it.
wheres my holo projector?
Holo Projector Here -> http://gl.ict.usc.edu/Research/3DDisplay/
I wont be buying 3D TV and I've also decided not to view any more 3D films in the cinema. They both give me headaches after a session of watching. . I think the industry has no idea what customers want.
For me it's the glasses. I can't imagine a family all sitting eating popcorn with those stupid glasses on, and then you have a few spare in case someone pops round mid film. I just can't see it taking off. Ditch the shades then maybe....
be nice if you could build a movie theater onto your place.. then it'd be fun to wear the glasses- otherwise you look like a dbag
The whole 3D video fad reminds me a lot of the 3G phone network launch:
3G video calling hyped to death by the manufacturers and carriers whilst the general public mostly gave it a huge 'meh'*
3D has a bit more traction than this, but i personally don't know anyone IRL who's interested in 3D TV...
*Out of interest, has anyone seen anyone use video calling ever?
I was just thinking that it's like WAP (remember that?!) - huge amounts of hype, but never living up to it, and eventually replaced by something much better that actually works.
As for video calling, outside of business-related video conferencing, no. Never. It's just not convenient to do in most of the places you make mobile calls, because it involved holding the handset at arms length and having the speakerphone turned on.
I've known one couple to use video-calling. And that was because his girlfriend was deaf.
I *just* bought a 36" HDTV, I'm not about to CONSIDER getting a 3D TV.
HDTV is cool and all, but I could have lived without it. Avatar looks the best on it though.
And now just after that, they want us to get another TV? Screw that.
thats pretty cool, but i want it without spinning mirrors
With the market penetration of HDTV's being what it is, is it really time to be pushing a new technology?
Thoug saying that a lot of current hyped tech isn't really taking off, Blu-Ray being another, when you take the copies of casino royale that they gave away with the PS3's off the sales figures don't look very healthy..
that IS cool. hands down.
but as other has said it.. we want one without spinning mirrors.
that being said, when i think more about it, i cant really call that a holonet when its actually "only" a spinning mirror with interactive imaging... i *feel* as if its a "fake holonet"... kinda feel abit... cheated... i dunno how to express it lol
but it is cool. wont argue that.
What about from a sheer laziness point of view?
When I went to watch Avatar in 3D, it was cool for about 5 minutes but the novelty soon wore off. Why? Because I just wanted to slouch in my chair and not have to worry about focussing on anything other than the screen in front of me.
Separate names with a comma.