Just had a demo of Panasonic 3D TV.
Discussion
We sell Panasonic TVs where I work, so I managed to go through the whole demo disk.
It looks impressive, but does seem a bit layered on still images.
The other issue IMO is that due to the size of the TV screen compared to watching it at a cinema, you are aware of the edges of the screen sometimes which can spoil the effect a bit. This worked well with the fish tank demo though.
The glasses are reasonably comfortable, but occasionally they lose their connection with the TV and flicker slightly. I'm not sure how long they would remain comfortable.
The 2D image was just like a normal quality 1080p TV.
Not cheap at £2295 including 2 set of glasses - they are £100 per extra set.
One of the demo films showed a very attractive lady stroking her puppies and showing her wide open box in full 3D!
It looks impressive, but does seem a bit layered on still images.
The other issue IMO is that due to the size of the TV screen compared to watching it at a cinema, you are aware of the edges of the screen sometimes which can spoil the effect a bit. This worked well with the fish tank demo though.
The glasses are reasonably comfortable, but occasionally they lose their connection with the TV and flicker slightly. I'm not sure how long they would remain comfortable.
The 2D image was just like a normal quality 1080p TV.
Not cheap at £2295 including 2 set of glasses - they are £100 per extra set.
One of the demo films showed a very attractive lady stroking her puppies and showing her wide open box in full 3D!
I am sitting back and waiting for 3D ready projectors to start filtering through..
I already has a Plasma, and have been holding back from a projector as i want to see the 3d Projectors on the market before i take the plundge..
Would be good to see a 42" LCD/Plasma with 3D tech but i am yet to find a dealer who is going to sell them
I already has a Plasma, and have been holding back from a projector as i want to see the 3d Projectors on the market before i take the plundge..
Would be good to see a 42" LCD/Plasma with 3D tech but i am yet to find a dealer who is going to sell them
err had a bit of an impulse buy at the weekend...
have now got the Samsung 40" 3dtv / 3d blue ray player and soundbar sat downstairs.
hooked it all up and monster vs aliens in 3d was rather fun.
the addition ability to upscale any normal tv program to 3d isn't as gimmicky as i thought.
watched the f1 in 3d upscale mode and the 'effect' was quite noticeable especially when the graphics were layered on screen.
have now got the Samsung 40" 3dtv / 3d blue ray player and soundbar sat downstairs.
hooked it all up and monster vs aliens in 3d was rather fun.
the addition ability to upscale any normal tv program to 3d isn't as gimmicky as i thought.
watched the f1 in 3d upscale mode and the 'effect' was quite noticeable especially when the graphics were layered on screen.
t84 said:
Does anyone else think that 3D is just a horrible gimmick and hope it dies out?
I watched Avatar in 2D this weekend and found it immensely more enjoyable than the 3D version.
Did you watch it on your 4 by 3 square TV as well?I watched Avatar in 2D this weekend and found it immensely more enjoyable than the 3D version.
That's what you need for the full effect - that widescreen rubbish was just a way of getting you to buy a new TV.
JustinP1 said:
t84 said:
Does anyone else think that 3D is just a horrible gimmick and hope it dies out?
I watched Avatar in 2D this weekend and found it immensely more enjoyable than the 3D version.
Did you watch it on your 4 by 3 square TV as well?I watched Avatar in 2D this weekend and found it immensely more enjoyable than the 3D version.
That's what you need for the full effect - that widescreen rubbish was just a way of getting you to buy a new TV.
Martin Keene said:
Yelly said:
No TV system that requires the user wearing glasses will ever have mass appeal.
Especially if you already have to wear glasses to watch normal TV. Two pairs of glasses to watch telly? Genius idea...
i wear glasses and the 3d ones fit over the top quite easily and comfortably.
is it a gimmick .. yes , is it fun .. yes
to be honest - i see it in the same way as others spend loads of money of surround sound systems with than having a cheaper set from asda !
both improve the experience, both are not really needed
is it a gimmick .. yes , is it fun .. yes
to be honest - i see it in the same way as others spend loads of money of surround sound systems with than having a cheaper set from asda !
both improve the experience, both are not really needed
Surely the problem with 3DTV is that the tech has been around for years in one form or another, and no-one has ever really been bothered with it other than as a gimmick.
In 1990 I saw what I thought was a superb 3D movie at one of the film studio theme parks in Florida (MGM I think).
Was I impressed? Yes
Was it a fun novelty? Yes
Would I be gutted if I couldn't have this in my home? Not a chance!
As already mentioned, the screen would need to be larger than your normal field of vision for it to work properly and therefore it only really makes sense as a cinema/theme park novelty.
You will of course have those people that always have to have the biggest/fastest/loudest of everything so will rush out to embrace this new technology, so it will have a market if it does take off.
However, and this is a big "however", the companies that are ploughing large sums into developing this aren't going to be doing this if they do not believe it will take off and bring them massive profits. I believe we will find a lot of new TVs having the capability to display 3D but with relatively little media to take advantage of it. It's also possible that this tech has come too soon on the back of Blu Ray, which many people still haven't switched to as such.
In 1990 I saw what I thought was a superb 3D movie at one of the film studio theme parks in Florida (MGM I think).
Was I impressed? Yes
Was it a fun novelty? Yes
Would I be gutted if I couldn't have this in my home? Not a chance!
As already mentioned, the screen would need to be larger than your normal field of vision for it to work properly and therefore it only really makes sense as a cinema/theme park novelty.
You will of course have those people that always have to have the biggest/fastest/loudest of everything so will rush out to embrace this new technology, so it will have a market if it does take off.
However, and this is a big "however", the companies that are ploughing large sums into developing this aren't going to be doing this if they do not believe it will take off and bring them massive profits. I believe we will find a lot of new TVs having the capability to display 3D but with relatively little media to take advantage of it. It's also possible that this tech has come too soon on the back of Blu Ray, which many people still haven't switched to as such.
Can someone tell me what the difference is, technology-wise, between a 3D enabled/ready TV and a HD ready TV. Is there actually any difference in the screen or gubbings inside that stands them apart from each other?
Are the 3D specs like polaroid sunglasses as opposed to the analogue sweet wrapper red and green ones?
Are the 3D specs like polaroid sunglasses as opposed to the analogue sweet wrapper red and green ones?
XMG5 said:
Can someone tell me what the difference is, technology-wise, between a 3D enabled/ready TV and a HD ready TV. Is there actually any difference in the screen or gubbings inside that stands them apart from each other?
Are the 3D specs like polaroid sunglasses as opposed to the analogue sweet wrapper red and green ones?
Tech wise .. the screen has to be able to display two pictures - so basically a fast refresh rate.Are the 3D specs like polaroid sunglasses as opposed to the analogue sweet wrapper red and green ones?
the glasses are like polaroid.
t84 said:
I'm sorry, did you just say surround systems aren't needed?
Is there something wrong with you?
I knew that wasn't that clear. Surrond sound is good. but the need to spend thousands on it is debatable ( to me anyway)Is there something wrong with you?
Digger said:
I think what Justin is saying is that 3D is the future and like the uptake and introduction of new technologies in there infancy it will be a while before it takes off. I think he saying that it is NOT a gimmick??
But then I might be wrong!
You are right, I was joking in a sarcastic way, but making a real point. That is, what seems like a gimmick and superfluous at one point in time, again, again and again becomes the norm without you even realise until you look back.But then I might be wrong!
Going back to my degree research in a related issue, the history is quite interesting. There is of course slight resistance to change from the 'norm'. However, of course the aim of the technology of reproduction in the cinema and home is to bring the view of 'reality' to the view as close as possible.
At each time along this timeline, these technologies were seen as 'new' or a bit unnatural or a gimmick:
Sound in films. Many studios ignored making 'talkies'. People actually speaking in a film was a gimmick.
Colour in films. Many studios ignored colour in film and saw it as uncouth and B&W being much more artistic and dynamic, and held on in film noir etc.
Surround sound in cinemas. Many cinema chains had awful sound - then in the 70's and 80's and the rise of Star Wars et al this made a whole new standard set for the need for surround sound in both production and consumption.
Then in the home:
Colour TV. Colour film was around 30 year before colour TV became widespread.
Nicam stereo - became the standard in reproducing a better quality sound.
Widescreen TV - why would you want that when 90% of things are stretched to fit? Not any more.
Flatscreen TV - Was out when all sets were curved towards a goldfish bowl.
Plasma TV - meant that you could get bigger than a 36 inch TV. But who needs bigger than that eh?
Surround sound in the home - who on earth would want speakers BEHIND their head!?
The common denominator is that all of these technologies bring the viewer closer to perceived reality of the medium. Humans view in widescreen, colour, and we hear in surround sound. That was natural progression, as was the progress to 3D.
Of course, as we know the 70's 3D did not take off as it did not make the film better, it made it worse as it destroyed the colour of the film. It was fundamentally flawed.
Taking all the above logic into account 3D is a no-brainer to back. Humans see in 3D, and that is more natural for us to view even if we are not yet used to the playback of the media yet.
Is that the last word?
No, because the logical progression is 3D without the glasses. And if that is possible, then that will happen eventually.
JustinP1 said:
Is that the last word?
No, because the logical progression is 3D without the glasses. And if that is possible, then that will happen eventually.
Agree with the trending outlined above.No, because the logical progression is 3D without the glasses. And if that is possible, then that will happen eventually.
3D without glasses is absolutely possible. I saw a demo from some German University about 10 years ago that used twin filters on the screen itself. Very narrow viewing angle though.
Anyway, bugger 3D this way. I want holograms.
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff