3D Television

[roland]

I had a go at watching 3D TV in Myers the other day and I must say, it was stunning. Damn it!

Now that's a new future toy to add to the shopping list.

Does anyone have a 3DTV and what are your conclusions - happy???

 

[newbie trader]

I wouldn't buy one while the tech is still so new. I think they've already released 3D tv's in Japan that do not require the goggles? Apparently they'll be hitting our stores early next year.

 

[tothemax6]

I had a go at watching 3D TV in Myers the other day and I must say, it was stunning. Damn it!
Now that's a new future toy to add to the shopping list.
Does anyone have a 3DTV and what are your conclusions - happy???

Is it easy to watch? I.e. does it make your eyes feel funny or give you headaches or anything? My old TV got blown up in an electrical storm last week, so I will be in the market soon.

 

[Whiskers]

What if you only have one eye... do you see 3D or 1D?

 

[derty]

What if you only have one eye... do you see 3D or 1D?

2D - we all see in 2D. Our 3D comprises of two stereoscopically superimposed 2D images.

 

[Twiddle]

I find the reaction to 3d televisions quite interesting.

The most common complaint is "But I don't want to have to sit there with glasses on!".
Yet most people will happily walk around outside with sunglasses on, and even prefer to wear them because they think they look "cool", or enjoy the benefit to their eyes.

Suddenly when it comes to enjoying a visual experience in more depth, glasses become a no no. I could understand if the glasses were heavy and uncomfortable, but most of the modern ones are not.

The panels which display 3d without the need for glasses have a very narrow viewing angle, and are not quite as effective as having a separate view for each eye like the glasses based systems provide. (which is how we naturally see the world).

I think 3d is worthwhile, but with one major drawback at the moment. Films and most games (on consoles) run at 30 frames per second. This is low enough for your eyes to detect flicker if it is looking for it. 60 frames per second, or 16 miliseconds per frame, is high enough to fool our eyes and to make things look completely smooth.

With regular flat TV, we are used to looking at a flat surface which displays 24 - 30 frames per second. It looks "normal" to us, because we understand that we are looking at something which is displaying an image. However when we don the 3d glasses, all of a sudden our brain is fooled into thinking we are looking at the actual object on the screen, not just an object that has a moving picture on it. All of a sudden our brain's go "err, why is that person flickering when he moves?". Scenes which are static and where there is very little movement look good enough at 30 frames per second, but as soon as things move quick enough for us to detect that it is not completely smooth (I.E it is not 60+ frames per second) it doesn't look great.

Until movies are shot with high frame rate cameras, and storage media and video codec allow for 60+ fps playback, 3d movies will not be reaching their potential.

However, with the next generation of consoles, and with many current fast PCs, achieving high resolution games at 60FPS will be where the most enjoyment in 3d is to be had in the next few years.

 

[Ashsaege]

We have a 50 or 55inch Samsung 3D tv at home. It is sick! Had for a few months now.

We only have the one movie on it, Aliens vs Monsters, and it looks awesome. Not a very good movie, but I've watched it a few times just because i like the 3D!

Unfortunately we dont get the 3D channel in Angaston, Barossa Valley... wrong side of the hill. So i can't comment what the 3D channels look like.

But I'd highly recommend the 3D TV. My advice is get the biggest one you can afford. The 55inch tv is massive for normal TV, but when you wear the glasses and the room is dark, the screen looks small.

 

[bellenuit]

The most common complaint is "But I don't want to have to sit there with glasses on!".

Isn't it an issue for the casual watcher, who may be reading a book while others are watching the 3D channel, but still wants to see bits of what is going on. The glasses issue to me is not so much that you have to wear glasses to see the 3D effect, it is that without glasses you have an unwatchable image. If without glasses you could see it in perfect 2D that would be fine, but instead you get a fuzzy image that is discernible, but makes you dizzy.

Also, when all your friends kids are over for your son's/daughter's birthday party and someone puts on a 3D movie but there aren't enough glasses to go round..... the beginnings of WW3 IMO.

 

[Twiddle]

Isn't it an issue for the casual watcher, who may be reading a book while others are watching the 3D channel, but still wants to see bits of what is going on. The glasses issue to me is not so much that you have to wear glasses to see the 3D effect, it is that without glasses you have an unwatchable image. If without glasses you could see it in perfect 2D that would be fine, but instead you get a fuzzy image that is discernible, but makes you dizzy.

Also, when all your friends kids are over for your son's/daughter's birthday party and someone puts on a 3D movie but there aren't enough glasses to go round..... the beginnings of WW3 IMO.

The TVs are capable of displaying 2d also.

If the situation does not call for 3d, watch it in 2d.

 

[bellenuit]

The TVs are capable of displaying 2d also.

If the situation does not call for 3d, watch it in 2d.

Of course, but I was specifically referring to the situation where some people are watching 3D, but others want to just casually observe without having to don 3D glasses.

 

[Smurf1976]

3D has been the "next big thing" since the 1980's and briefly started to appear (at the cinema) back then.

I'll hold off buying a 3D TV simply because I'm far from convinced that this is actually going to catch on. Maybe it will, but I've been hearing about it for a quarter century thus far and there is still very little 3D program content available either TV or movies.

And there's that little point that if I'm going to spend $$$ on a new TV then there would need to be something worth watching...

 

[Twiddle]

Of course, but I was specifically referring to the situation where some people are watching 3D, but others want to just casually observe without having to don 3D glasses.

You could ask them to not be selfish and turn the TV to 2d mode.

If you had a non 3d tv you would all be watching in 2d anyway, so if someone wants to sit there and watch 3d taking the attitude of "screw the rest of the people", then you probably have more problems than just a shadowy image on a TV.

 

[Ferret]

Are the glasses that go with the 3D TVs comfortable to wear over normal glasses?

I wear glasses and find that by the end of a 2 hour 3D movie at the cinema it is getting very uncomfortable with the 3D glasses on top of my regular pair. This is a show stopper for me unless the 3D TV glasses have this sorted out.

 

[Dowdy]

I just bought a 3d TV. LG LX479500.

Although it does do 3D, I didn't buy it for 3D. I still have a CRT TV and I hear some people are on to their 3ed-4th LCD/Plasma/LED. For me this is an upgrade from a CRT TV

3D will be big mainly because games and blu ray movies are coming out with 3D whilst in the past that wasn't possible.

If you want to hold off, the next big thing in TVs is OLED technology but that's about 1-2 years away before you can afford. I waited 10 years to get a LED TV so I suppose 2 years isn't much