3D TV

Any one got one they had a demo set up on a Sky stand in a local shopping mall last week and I took the time to take a look it was very peculiar at first but as I spent a little more time there I was very impressed. They showed a spider crawling arournd and as it streched its tenticle toward the screen I couldnt help but take a step backwards. They also showed a golf scene on the tee and you realy felt you were on the green with the guys just amazing TV.

Ian

Don't have one but the shops over here are full of them and I've had plenty of demo's. With the right source material and the "expensive" active spectacles, it is a wonderful experience.

I didn't buy one, I bought another large Samsung LED screen. My feelings are that it won't commercially take off. If I wait a couple of years and am proven wrong, then material is more and prices less. $200 here for a second set of glasses!

Best regards

Yes I know some glasses can be very expensive but Im pretty sure there are cheaper ones to get. If I had not purchased my new TV recently I have to say I would have been very tempted to go for a 3D set.
Ian

The current ones or most of them work with active shutters and the glasses are heavy and expensive.
polarized glasses are much cheaper and lighter, i hope you see them more, most cinema's use those glasses.

And there are already techniques that don't require glasses but they are mighty expensive.

But the next best thing is already being developed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbk5_XEZ3DQ

Seems as with most things these days when you buy a product the upgrade is just waiting around the corner.
Ian

I saw a demo using a Veolia(?) and polaeized glasses, impressive, but I wanted gold frames so didn't bother..

My brother has one. When you watch shows with fast paced action, a lot of people complain it gives them motion sickness. Maybe it gets better after a while, but...

Yes what's out there looks great, somehow to me the TV systems look even better than the Cinema ones.

As Stephan says the technology is evolving and they are already working on systems that don't need glasses. Expensive right now but surely the way forward.

As with any new AV tech - from VHS vs Betmax onwards the 'sensible' thing to do is wait until it's settled and the prices are no longer 'premuim'. And of course we are all sensible aren't we

As the proud owner of a HD-DVD player and about 30 HD-DVDs I couldn’t agree more.

I now have a Blu-ray and many Blu-ray disks, but still think the HD-DVD were faster to load and better for menu navigation. Just like the Beta/VHS battle the superior system does not always win, it will come down to which manufactures have the most commitment and deepest wallets as to who wins the 3D format war.

Well I see 3-d tv as a gimmick more than anything... if I was to buy one I'd want to see three things in place first:

1) the 2-d imaging performance had better be up to standards with no compromises.....
2) the thing had better work with my computers (I got no issues with using a computer as media server/streamer form my tv needs) and be calibrated properly.....
3) cost no more than current hdtv flatpanels...

I'll only be interested in 3D when you don't need to wear special glasses or sit at precisely the right distance/angle from the screen.

Like the others said. There are two types, active shutter glasses which need a battery and are from £50 to £150 per pair. Samsung, Sony and Panasonic use this system. However each manufacturer's glasses work only with their brand of Tv.
The Polarised glasses are only a few pounds a pair. But currently only LG and JVC use this system and JVC 3D tv's are VERY expensive. The LG may be your best bet fot this system. However because of how they work you only get half the vertical resolution of the screen. so a 1920 x 1080 picture would only be 1920 x 540in each eye in 3D mode.
You get the full HD resolution (1920x1080) with the active shutter system.
I have to say I am unconvinced it will take off in a big way as it is ( at least for now)very expensive and time consuming to do 3D properly.
By the way many of the 3d tv's already meet your requirements Don. ( well same price as top end flat panels anyway .)

I'd much rather have good programme content in 2D that a whole host of films made to exploit the special effect wow factor of 3D. We don't really watch that much TV anyway, and 3D wouldn't enhance any of it.

Who knows whwere it will lead, but if still photography 3D is anything to go by it will be a very long and difficult path for the manufacturers.

Well, they've nailed 3D in the cinema now, so who knows.

But I agree with you John, for most things, what is the point of 3D? I don't even see the point of HD for a lot of the TV and video I watch. I download a lot of things and it just gobbles up bandwidth.

But the next David Attenborough series in 3D.... that would be worth seeing! ;P