3D TV

[mazda lover]

Did a search and came up with nothing
anybody check out the new 3D TVs. Looked at one at Future shop and Best Buy both 55" Samsung. People in the store but nobody lining up to view it. I spent and good 15 minutes at each, no line ups. The sales person at Future Shop turned off the 3D and I viewed the movie without the glasses and still looked great, not sure I would spend the money on the glasses at first. Opinions anyone...

[PCLoadLetter]

As soon as they make a 3D TV that doesn't require glasses, I'll be excited.

[rick@garage16.ca]

I was looking at the futureshop flyer today and seen a 3D tv for $2999... then you have to add...

3D HDMI Cable - $119
Glasses for 3D tv - $249
3D Blu Ray - $399

so if you plan on buying a set and have a family of 4... well then here is your bill

Tv- $2999 + Glasses for family of 4 $996 + cable $119 = $4655 + if you want a blu ray

but good news is...you get a free movie when you buy this

By time your done you spent $5000

[mazdabetty]

I can't even imagine watching TV with those glasses on.... I have a hard enough time as it is at night when I'm not wearing contacts and am forced to wear my regular glasses... you can't smush your head into your pillow and watch as easily hahahahha, I wouldn't want to wear those huge ugly things as well.

I saw one at the Sony store at Yorkdale a few weeks ago, it looked HORRIBLE!!!! And the 3d didn't even work really. I think the reason no one is lining up for it is because it's just really bad idea. A fad IMO, and just a huge inconvenience. Unless, of course, you have the money to throw away and just want to use it for watching a movie now and again... but for regular viewing, I imagine it would just cause a headache from eye strain, more than an enjoyable viewing experience.

[Skippy]

Personally I see no real reason to purchase a 3D TV at this particular point in time, other than to say you have the latest and greatest technology out there. Not only do you have to fork out all that extra cash for the glasses and cables, but regular blu rays players will not play the 3d content - you will be required to purchase a new blu ray player with 3D playback (according to the video futureshop has on their site). Same goes for the video game consoles which will be introducing 3D games (PS3 will require another video output add-on) It's just another marketing scam if you ask me. If you wanna watch a movie in 3D, go see it in IMAX, it'll cost you less for the family to go than the blu ray it self will cost.

just my .02

[loosecannon]

I think all the hype was generated with Avatar in 3D. Now every movie tries to be 3D just to compete.

3D is nice in theatres, but this won't work at home.

[Burner]

I feel for the moron that spends $120 on a 3D HDMI cable when a normal HDMI 1.3 cable displays 3D perfectly.

The price on the 3D glasses is just silly as well.

[gretzky]

if they make it cheaper and find a way that you dont need glasses i would deff get one. maybe a screen infront of the tv that does the same thing as the glasses...if that would even work

[Skippy]

if they make it cheaper and find a way that you dont need glasses i would deff get one. maybe a screen infront of the tv that does the same thing as the glasses...if that would even work

Wouldn't work. The glasses worn on your eyes gives it the depth that you see as 3D.

[gretzky]

Wouldn't work. The glasses worn on your eyes gives it the depth that you see as 3D.

so is there any way to have 3D without glasses

[Skippy]

ya when star trek technology comes out lol

[gretzky]

ya when star trek technology comes out lol

lmfao...whens that :P

[Skippy]

lmfao...whens that :P
Only time will tell.

[mazdabetty]

so is there any way to have 3D without glasses

There is a way but it's not developed, and with our technology today, looks like crap.

I used to work for a company that developed a "hologram" display of sorts... all it is is 3D objects on a keyed background that rotate a certain way, to give the illusion that the object is in fact rotating in 3D space (on a large glass panel angled at a certain degree). It was going really well for a year or so, but the company flopped really badly. That's why I stand by what I said when I say it's a huge fad. Neat idea, but it just won't work, for a very long time at least.

I suppose the other way to see 3D without glasses would be to use the magic eye method... ahhahaha remember those books? I used to be so good at those!!! lol

[malfunktion]

the 3D tvs are too silly still. Too many things to it and not enough of a market ploy. Nobody wants to layout 1000$ for 3D glasses for a family of 4.

Also theres like, 3 movies that are 3D compatible . LOL

[5_Alive]

I work for Sony.. here is how it works.. The TV's at the Sony Style stores you see now can only display a few videos.. The TV's out right now are prototypes.. there will be pix-elation.. The PS3 that is playing the videos can do only that task; play the videos and a demo of Wipeout.

The glasses for Sony are going to range in the $150 area.

Right now if you pre-order, the 52'' is $4,499.99 with two glasses and a 3D Blu-Ray player. The 60'' is $5,499.99, same package. This is a special pre-order bundle.

When the 46'' is available, it will be $3,499.99. There is no pre-order right now on the 46''.

For comparison sake, last years' 65'' W-series TV retailed for $6,499.99, and you don't get nearly half the features of the new XBR-LX900 series 3D TV.

If you purchase the HX900 series, which is 3D-ready, you save a little bit, and can add the transmitter and glasses in a package at a later time.
I hope this clears up a little bit of confusion. The world isn't yet fully ready for 3D. Many broadcast companies haven't yet prepared for this. Once satellite and cable go full board, then it will be the experience of a lifetime.

As well, only Sony and Samsung use Real-D technology.
Moe

[m_bisson]

Personally I see no real reason to purchase a 3D TV at this particular point in time, other than to say you have the latest and greatest technology out there.

this isn't new... about 15 years ago they had the same thing, but glasses were wired, not wireless. And you could only get it for your computer. The only reason these TVs came out is because of the publics response to 3D movies in theatres. The technology is still the same as it was 15 years ago: project 2 images, have glasses that filter out the one of the images for each eye, yay 3d.

[Piru]

Actually, nVidia has been pushing TV 3D since 2006, which prompted a lot of LCD manufacturers to bump up to 120hz monitors. The technology for it has always existed - use a combination of software and LCD shutter glasses to create a 3D effect.

It really sucks for people like me who bought a new TV last year or the year before. The only difference between those "older" TVs and the newer ones is that the ones can receive a TRUE 120hz signal, which is required for 3D, whereas the older 120hz+ TVs take a 60hz input and interpolate it to 120hz/240hz/600hz. The true 120hz input is then divided into 60hz for each eye. So the newer hardware, in combination with the 3D software, has a premium of $2000 :D yayy well that really sucks.

But realistically though, will you spend an extra $2000 just to get 3D? And how about people that have like 4 or more people in the house...are you gonna buy each person a set of $250 glasses? Or are you gonna take turns watching the cool 3D? lol

This is just a stepping stone till they have perfected holographic TVs and laser TVs which are both capable of displaying 3D depth without the need for glasses. Also, Intel showed off a TV that produces 3D without the need for glasses (http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/10/intel-shows-off-glasses-free-3d-demo-now-this-is-more-like-it/) at CES 2010 (the video at the bottom doesn't do it justice). I'm pretty sure that in about 3 years, these new technologies will be perfected and we will be looking at another $2000+ premium. It just doesn't seem worth it right now. Make a TV like in Intel's demo that doesn't need glasses but has the capability for full 1080p with a reasonable price tag, then maybe more people will be interested.

Oh and for those interested, here is a list of current TVs that support 3D (http://www.3dmovielist.com/3dhdtvs.html).

[SpeedBaby]

i wonder if you can claim those glasses under group insurance benefits? can you get a prescription for them on the grounds that you are having issues seeing in 3D?

[laksman91]

3D video games would be so cool. Like a Call of Duty or a sports game


i wonder if you can claim those glasses under group insurance benefits? can you get a prescription for them on the grounds that you are having issues seeing in 3D?

Haha that'd be pretty funny

[matt9]

Having worked in digital video a couple years and see 3D Sony and Panasonic TVs last year in Las Vegas, I don't really see this as a fad.

I have watched the Beijing Olympics opening ceremonies, some sporting events and a music video in 3D and they looked incredible (much better than the movies coming out as of late).

Considering Blu-ray supports 3D video and I doubt it cost the manufacturers much more to produce 3D tvs, its only a matter of time before broadcasters start supporting 3D channels and you will get to watch sporting events in 3D (probably will be the first channels in 3D).

Now, I have NO idea why the glasses cost 250 dollars, that sounds ridiculous. I don't know what the hell a 3D HDMI cable is, in fact, I don't even see why it is not the same HDMI cable as before (its still just 1920x1080 video coming to the tv...). I do see why there is a 3D blu-ray player though. Also, I don't there will be any time in the near future before we can watch 3D without glasses...

[Burner]

I totally see this 3D thing as a fad.

The human eye will render a well shot 2D image in 3D anyways. Have you ever noticed when watching a 3D movie in the theatre, you just don't notice the 3D effects unless they come right out at you? I recently watched Alice in Wonderland, and after about 20 minutes I couldn't even tell it was a 3D movie anymore until I really started looking for the effects.

[Piru]

I don't know what the hell a 3D HDMI cable is, in fact, I don't even see why it is not the same HDMI cable as before (its still just 1920x1080 video coming to the tv...)

I think its because the older version of HDMI (I think 1.3?) only had enough bandwidth to support 1080p @ 60Hz, the newer version has enough bandwidth to support 1080p @ 120Hz, which is required for 3D. That being said, don't your cables from BB or FS..I used to work there and its ridiculous how much they sell them for..and its even more ridiculous when customers INSIST on buying the overpriced ones. :loco


I totally see this 3D thing as a fad.

The human eye will render a well shot 2D image in 3D anyways. Have you ever noticed when watching a 3D movie in the theatre, you just don't notice the 3D effects unless they come right out at you? I recently watched Alice in Wonderland, and after about 20 minutes I couldn't even tell it was a 3D movie anymore until I really started looking for the effects.

ummm..i still haven't watched Avatar in 3D so I don't get what the big deal about 3D is in the first place LOL...when we went to watch it, the wait for 3D was too long and sold out, so we just watched the regular one.

[MajesticBlueNTO]

I feel for the moron that spends $120 on a 3D HDMI cable when a normal HDMI 1.3 cable displays 3D perfectly.

The price on the 3D glasses is just silly as well.

HDMI 1.3 will display 3D @ 1080i only

HDMI 1.4 (the 3D HDMI cable referenced) will display 3D @ 1080p

[iconicrocket]

Here's some info on 3D TVs without glasses, but it's going to take a couple of years before it comes on mainstream.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/3DTV-autostereoscopic-CES,review-1490-2.html

[Burner]

HDMI 1.3 will display 3D @ 1080i only

HDMI 1.4 (the 3D HDMI cable referenced) will display 3D @ 1080p

I'm aware of that. Now if you really feel like you can visually tell the difference between the two, you have much better eyesight than anyone I know.

[MajesticBlueNTO]

I'm aware of that. Now if you really feel like you can visually tell the difference between the two, you have much better eyesight than anyone I know.

i'm just pointing out the differences between HDMI 1.3 and 1.4 when it comes to 3D. it's up to the person buying the cables to decide which one they want to go with.

[matt9]

So 3D has to be 1080p as opposed to 1080i? Not sure what 120Hz vs. 60Hz has to do with it.

[Burner]

So 3D has to be 1080p as opposed to 1080i? Not sure what 120Hz vs. 60Hz has to do with it.

No it doesn't have to be.

http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_1_4/3d.aspx


All High Speed HDMI cables will support 3D when connected to 3D devices. You can use your existing High Speed HDMI cables or choose a different cable type.

[matt9]

I think it will catch on more when sports start getting filmed in HD-3D (with 3D cameras).

[SirWanker]

I think it will catch on more when sports start getting filmed in HD-3D (with 3D cameras).

Correction, once p0rn and more games use HD-3D, it will catch on.
what?

[iconicrocket]

Correction, once p0rn and more games use HD-3D, it will catch on.
what?

Having that stuff squirted at you in 3D might not get me excited at p0rn.

Water-sports FTW.

[SirWanker]

Having that stuff squirted at you in 3D might not get me excited at p0rn.

Water-sports FTW.

Never been pleasured by a female squirter eh? And i'm not talking about the golden shower variety either.......oh my one ticket please...at least it will be interesting

[vcp]

I Agree, 3D technology should catch on when console games start to utilize the technology and incorporating it. Porn, I guess that could work as well... ;)

[rustysoap]

I Agree, 3D technology should catch on when console games start to utilize the technology and incorporating it. Porn, I guess that could work as well... ;)

you guys ever watch Tropic Thunder? There's a quote in there that says that some studios backed HD DVD and others backed Blu-Ray, and the only reason that Blu-Ray won was because of gamers and porn. Whichever format Porn backs usually wins. Subsequently, here's a link from Cnet that backs the whole porn deciding the dominant format. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9681005-1.html I think it's funny that porn is the deciding factor. I guess if porn goes 3D, this'll take off, lol.

[vcp]

I believe I read somewhere that the Porn industry is larger than the music industry... So most definitely it would have some pull on optical disc technology...

[rustysoap]

So, I went to future shop today and checked out the 3DTV, I don't see the porn industry taking on the technology. I think I'll only pick it up if the next generation consoles support 3d games. Imagine "Call of Duty 8: Future warfare" in 3d, lol.

[BlackIce]

cant go wrong with 3D porn though, not like you will have the glasses on for hours on end! lol but 3D game will be amazing! im pretty sure eventually they will include that feature in the games probably even in the next couple years, really it just the image getting distorted and the glasses put it back together but makes certain parts stick out, its really not that hard to accomplish, it just has to hit the market at the right time, thats all!

[Blindside]

They pushed them out to soon beind the HD crowd. People that were against getting HD tvs are fianlly converting now, and then to throw 3d ontop of that will be a super hard sell.

[mazda lover]

A recent review of Samsung 3D LCD

http://www.avguide.com/review/samsung-8000-series-lcdled-3d-tv-tpv-88?src=Playback

[bhrm]

I've seen both the Samsung and Sony, its okay but I did get a bit dizzy after a while.

The Sony I know can 'upconvert' a normal video source to 3D, kind of weird but it works...a bit. It does seem very gimmicky though.

[RedRaptor]

I bought the UN46C7000 with the BlueRay and glasses package two weeks ago. Ordered HDMI 1.4 cables from Ebay for $13 instead of paying $100+ for a Monster cable. Tried using my older 1.3 cables and while it works, the 3D looks weird. Not enough bandwidth I guess.

Not much 3D content so far but just enjoying the TV as a 46" LED tv.

[CanadaGTO]

How about an 82" 3d TV for around $3800 USD? I know it's DLP, but really, that's not that big a deal, and you really need a big TV to get the best out of 3d.

http://gizmodo.com/5512442/mitsubishi-wd+82738-82-inches-of-3d-tv-for-only-3800