3D TVs Whos Interested?

Amp34 said:
You've just been spoilt.

We paid over £2k a few years ago for an SD plasma, in the last few years prices have dropped massively, except the pioneers that started at around £4k and dropped to £2k.
Click to expand...

no, lol, i just dont pay £2k for a 50" screen. not ever :)

Mr Latte said:
So you dont think 3D is going to be popular then?
Also past 3D experiences cant be compared to how good 3D is on the new shutter tech 120HZ displays.
Click to expand...

of course it will, it's evolution of television. how quickly it will catch on when a basic 50" set is £2k is any one's guess. not sure why you thought i wasnt impressed with it lol
 
The biggest problem for 3D is how effective the 3D will be for the average consumer in their living room. I just dont think 50" is even big enough just like for a cinematic experience in movies compared to a projector it isnt close to offering that cinema feel at home.

Already reports that you need to sit much closer and like in a cinema to fill your vision. For a 50" screen id expect you need to be about 4-5FT to really get something like a full peripheral vision of the TV. This just will not suit many folks home layouts and additionally the cost of the "shutter glasses" has to fall greatly for families, which in time I guess it will.

Early adopters may as usual be the techies, and typical single males that want to experience 3D Stereoscopic games, sport and movies.
One thing is clear though from reports that the 3D effect is good and the technology is as effective as in the cinema if you can sit close enough.

Just like PS3 was at the forefront to push Blu Ray I expect Sony have much more to show at E3 this year in games and for them with their 3D controller coming they are in a position to create a new "hype & experience" in gaming with possible 3D vision and 3D motion tracking controllers.
 
Last edited:
It really doesn't appeal to me in any way, shape or form in its current state.

Avatar in 3D didn't blow me away like it was supposed to and I fail to see how home viewing is going to be even on par with that experience, never mind dramatically improving on it.

I'll stick with 2D for a good while yet unless something amazing happens in the next few years.

Panzer
 
When they come up with a version that doesn't make the other half throw up and give her a massive headache...

..Then I'll take some interest in buying a 3dtv
 
Having semi-recently forked out £3,500 for a non-3D TV, I can't say I'm really interested in them right now haha!

But that aside, I only really see 3D stuff as a novelty and I certainly wouldn't want to watch everything in 3D. The odd film here and there is fine, but I think i'd get sick of seeing "everything" in my face.

It reminds me of video calls...... in the 80s/90s the idea of video calls was like: ZOMG WOW! But when it became a common feature on mobile networks...... who actually bothered to use it? Maybe 3D TV will be the same.... we'll see!
 
Mr Latte said:
Be great if you could give more detail on that, did it feel laggy or different from the typical game?
Its likely the PS3 outputs 1/2 resolution in 1080i for each eye to ensure the total resolution or demand on the PS3 doesnt exceed what the normal game uses.

Gaming and GT5 in particular also with head tracking could be great and is one of my main interests for the 3D benifits.
Think as already proven by Nvidia it can add a lot to the entertainment value of games.

Not a massive collector/rewatcher of films although Id love F1 to be in HD and 3D.
Click to expand...

It felt the same as the original, i was sitting a little too close for comfort but the responsiveness was the same.

Watching from a little further back was much more impressive, you could see the 3D effects more clearly, everything was just popping out.

I was really impressed, will definitely get one if it's not too expensive.

GT5 will be awesome!
 
I'm guessing that incorporates some sort of Cell processor in it?

Nice to see it being used in other technology, as Sony planned.
 
Phillips has some interesting ranges that look good but seems no prices yet for the PFL9705 and 8605 models.

These seem to have good specs and offer FULL HD 3D as well but start from as small as32" and 37"
 
james.miller said:
yeah....problem for people wearing prescription glasses though, as the GF found out.
Click to expand...

Actually, if 3D oes catch on the those of us with prescription glasses will just get another pair made up with suitably polarized prescription lenses to us when watching 3D ... so it will be no different for us - it'll just be the rest of you feeling self-concious wearing glasses.

N.b. I eventually went to Avatar last weekend .. I agree with another poster that there was no problem wearing the 3D glasses over mine. Also, great to see that the 3D glasses came "clean" in a sealed plastic bag rather than having the finger prints of the last dozen showings all over them. As for my take on the 3D - I agree it didn't "blow me away" but actually I think that was positive - a preview of the 3D Shrek that's coming before showed what an animation thats clearly selfconciously 3D looks like (things flying all around) whereas in Avatar the 3D seemed mostly to be understated and natural - i.e. it seemed to add to the overall effect rather than being the dominant feature.
 
james.miller said:
no, lol, i just dont pay £2k for a 50" screen. not ever :)



of course it will, it's evolution of television. how quickly it will catch on when a basic 50" set is £2k is any one's guess. not sure why you thought i wasnt impressed with it lol
Click to expand...

Meh, the tv we got was only 42", the 50" one was over £3k...;)

Still a bargain for new tech in my mind.
 
deshepherd said:
Actually, if 3D oes catch on the those of us with prescription glasses will just get another pair made up with suitably polarized prescription lenses to us when watching 3D ... so it will be no different for us - it'll just be the rest of you feeling self-concious wearing glasses.
Click to expand...

i cant see a lot of people wanting to do that :p
 
deshepherd said:
Actually, if 3D oes catch on the those of us with prescription glasses will just get another pair made up with suitably polarized prescription lenses to us when watching 3D ... so it will be no different for us - it'll just be the rest of you feeling self-concious wearing glasses.

N.b. I eventually went to Avatar last weekend .. I agree with another poster that there was no problem wearing the 3D glasses over mine. Also, great to see that the 3D glasses came "clean" in a sealed plastic bag rather than having the finger prints of the last dozen showings all over them. As for my take on the 3D - I agree it didn't "blow me away" but actually I think that was positive - a preview of the 3D Shrek that's coming before showed what an animation thats clearly selfconciously 3D looks like (things flying all around) whereas in Avatar the 3D seemed mostly to be understated and natural - i.e. it seemed to add to the overall effect rather than being the dominant feature.
Click to expand...

I don't think the home 3D system is using polarisation I believe its using alternate frames, 60 for each eye hence the 120hz.In that case you will need to wear slightly bulkier active LCD glasses which would presumably be slightly less convenient to wear over normal glasses. I'm sure if it really takes off though someone will start producing 3D glasses to fit over prescription ones though.
 
am i the only one that does not see the appeal of 3D at all? i seem to be the only one that doesnt want to rush to the cinema to watch something in 3D, id rather watch the 2D version..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom