3d tv

OK_Sauce

Yes you're right, it was a plasma with a lenticular screen. It was made by Philips. I saw a demonstration of it. It was rather impressive. However the last I heard, they were not developing it any further as they didn't want another format war.

lfc321

fiddiwebb wrote: »

I find it a pain wearing 3D glasses and can't understand why cinema is pushing 3D films unless they are trying to create a market for 3D TVs where you have to wear glasses.

Partly that, but mainly it's an anti-piracy measure. What it isn't about is anything to do with improving the films themselves.

littlepanther

I don't see the point and yes it is mainly done to stop piracy.

I have seen many examples of it and it really doesn't interest me and like many don't want to wear glasses to watch a film or TV.

Sowilo_2

Hate 3D films and hate 3D telly even more. I am blind in one eye so it is not just useless to me it is a b... nuisance, and as others have said who wants to sit watching tv in a pair of cardboard specs. Dead sexy eh.

aliEnRIK

All the tvs at the moment need glasses
Sharp have developed one without the need but the 'sweet spot' is for one person only so thats not going on the market. Lots of other manufacturers have thrown money into research and development for it but as yet no one has managed a decent looking 3D effect from a tv without the requirement of glasses
Even of those that DO, I believe only SONY have cracked it as all the others look 'blurred' once the 3D effect is achieved.
Thats on top of the fact that in changing the way the tv works it will almost certainly throw up problems that arnt wanted (smearing problems etc) until theyve got to grips with it

Research has been done on the 3D effect too, and about 18% of people will never really tell a difference! (Theres various studies of the effects of 3D ranging from mild to quite severe too)
Watching in 3D can also induce headaches etc if watched for too long (Those playing PS3 games in 3D will be the first to be hit id guess)

Personally im going to wait a good few years before even considering the possibility of buying one

chelms38

I walked into a pub once and thought people had gone mad wearing stupid glasses to watch a football match.I wouldn't buy a 3D tv even if all tv went down that road. :rotfl:

DCFC79

fiddiwebb wrote: »

I find it a pain wearing 3D glasses and can't understand why cinema is pushing 3D films unless they are trying to create a market for 3D TVs where you have to wear glasses.

Very few films in 3D that work and then after about 1/2 hour the novelty starts to wears off.

I won't be bothering untill you can watch 3D TV without glasses, come to think about it I would have though that the cinema would be the first to introduce proper 3D without the aid of glasses before the advent of aidless 3D TV.

its to do with the experience, the cinemas want to give us a better experience but to be honest ive not seen a film in 3d that impresses me and i cant imagine myself watching 3d tv wearing some stupid glasses plus theres the extra cost involved in buying a 3d tv

penrhyn

Dr K says 3D is a con, nuff said.

Esqui

penrhyn wrote: »

Dr K says 3D is a con, nuff said.

What, Karl from Neighbours?

He'd never lie...

penrhyn

No this one:D.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/2010/03/the_science_of_3d_explained.html