|
|
Post by Porscheguy on Apr 10, 2011 14:31:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Topend on Apr 10, 2011 14:35:28 GMT -5
If a 3D display becomes available that doesn't require the viewer to wear glasses and the 2D PQ is as good as my current display, then I'll consider one.
Dave.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2011 16:54:24 GMT -5
IMO as soon as there are no glasses, it will really take off for home use.
|
|
NorthStar
Seeker Of Truth
"And it stoned me to my soul" - Van Morrison
Posts: 0
|
Post by NorthStar on Apr 10, 2011 17:04:54 GMT -5
My comment is already in that link!
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Apr 10, 2011 17:42:06 GMT -5
My question is why can't home 3d work like it does in the theaters with passive polorized inexspensive glasses?
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs 
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Apr 10, 2011 18:39:47 GMT -5
My question is why can't home 3d work like it does in the theaters with passive polorized inexspensive glasses? Because then they can't charge you more money for the equipment! I mean, really; who's going to pay $200 for a pair of sun glasses that you can only watch your TV with? |
|
NorthStar
Seeker Of Truth
"And it stoned me to my soul" - Van Morrison
Posts: 0
|
Post by NorthStar on Apr 10, 2011 19:16:16 GMT -5
And you need another type of special glasses for people who cannot wear contact lenses but only prescription glasses, like me!
- Because I had an eye injury in the past that scratched my iris for life!
And laser cannot replace missing tissues, just yet!
3D is all about vision, eyesight; and no two people have the same eyesight, same set of eyes!
Same for Audio; no two set of ears are exactly the same!
|
|
|
|
Post by Porscheguy on Apr 10, 2011 19:17:24 GMT -5
|
|
NorthStar
Seeker Of Truth
"And it stoned me to my soul" - Van Morrison
Posts: 0
|
Post by NorthStar on Apr 10, 2011 19:52:45 GMT -5
My comment is in that link too! |
|
|
|
Post by Rawhide on Apr 11, 2011 10:38:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Apr 11, 2011 10:42:31 GMT -5
Very interesting. That answers my question. Thanks. |
|
NorthStar
Seeker Of Truth
"And it stoned me to my soul" - Van Morrison
Posts: 0
|
Post by NorthStar on Apr 11, 2011 11:31:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by regulator on Apr 11, 2011 11:36:12 GMT -5
I think the potential for 3-D is pretty good for games. I can't see it taking off in home theater applications, but for gaming definitely.
|
|
spork
Emo VIPs
Posts: 152
|
Post by spork on Apr 11, 2011 14:00:35 GMT -5
I think it will, but mostly because it has already made it into the lineups as a feature.
The entry price for 3D in 2010 was high, but this was more due to manufacturers milking the new tech such as they have done in the past with other technologies. (Do you remember the introductory prices of a Blu-ray player?)
If you take away this artificial price increase, with the technology as it stands now, I doubt that 3D adds much to the manufacturing costs of the set. As such, it would not make much sense to remove it as a feature. (I actually see the glasses-free 3D TVs of the future as having far more of a price bottleneck, as then the screens themselves need new tech, rather than an update to allow for 60Hz input signals, which has been achievable for some time now, with no change to the screen itself.)
As far as consumer reports go, they always seem to compare 3D vs. non-3D sales, which is unfair, since 3D TVs tend to be the higher end of a manufacturer's lineup. (This is changing in 2011, which will make 3D sales increase whether due to 3D itself or not.) A better metric would have been comparing sales of the higher end models of 2010 (which had 3D) to the sales of the higher end models of when 1080P first hit the shelves.
Speaking of 1080P versus 720P, sales of 720P are still quite strong, and 1080P content is still very, very lacking aside from Blu-rays, whose sales are also lacking. I do not see 1080P as being much different to 3D for your average consumer, and 1080P is still around.
Also, with 3D movies in theaters being relatively popular, most of the work is already done in terms of putting out a 3D Blu-ray, so that source will likely be around for some time.
The bottom line is that it will likely stay on as a feature, as there really is little to no cost downside for keeping it in the lineup. I doubt that they will hype it up as much in the years to come though, unless some major improvements are made.
|
|
bardo
Minor Hero
Posts: 22
|
Post by bardo on Apr 11, 2011 15:34:36 GMT -5
i'm not interested in 3D at home until it requires no glasses. i've heard there are some models on the way that feature this.
of course, if history repeats itself, whether or not this technology/medium takes off will likely be determined by the adult film industry. they seemed to be the determining factor with blu-ray, dvd, and vhs. if people buy those films in 3d, it'll take off. if not, then probably not.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,486
|
Post by DYohn on Apr 11, 2011 16:21:34 GMT -5
I'm not interested in 3D period. Not in cinema, not in the home, and I hope it goes away. I wish HDMI could just get perfected.
|
|
|
|
Post by Entity on Apr 11, 2011 19:56:51 GMT -5
Personally, I couldn't care less about 3D. No matter what they do, it always looks like a faked up gimmick to me.
|
|
NorthStar
Seeker Of Truth
"And it stoned me to my soul" - Van Morrison
Posts: 0
|
Post by NorthStar on Apr 11, 2011 20:35:16 GMT -5
Real life outside, is it 3D?
|
|
NorthStar
Seeker Of Truth
"And it stoned me to my soul" - Van Morrison
Posts: 0
|
Post by NorthStar on Apr 11, 2011 22:00:20 GMT -5
Can you see the 3D effect in this picture?  |
|
NorthStar
Seeker Of Truth
"And it stoned me to my soul" - Van Morrison
Posts: 0
|
Post by NorthStar on Apr 11, 2011 22:06:11 GMT -5
Yes! Ok then, just hold on for about two hours. Then tell me how you feel.  ;D ...That's what they're saying too! ...A lot of other people. |
|
;D ...That's what they're saying too! ...A lot of other people. 