Just had a mooch round Comet, and they had a 3D TV with some glasses you could try. It worked, and it was quite impressive in a 'that's different' sort of way, but it didn't make me want to get my wallet out.
The programme being shown had some kids standing around in a woodland with a witch-like character. The kids stood out from the background ok, but they looked flat, like cardboard cut-outs. The 'witch' did some sort of spell which made a (very) mini-tornado in front of the group, and I did like the way the leaves spun around and out towards the viewer.
Is 3D going to take over?
|
I saw Toy Story in 3D at the kino, it was good for sure
DO I want to have to wear special glasses to watch the tv? Nope!
|
Watched for a while at the PC World demo of 3D TV. Thought that's impressive but immediately filed under the *of no interest to me* tab.
As Zero says the glasses kill the idea for home use.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Fri 31 Dec 10 at 12:00
|
|
I splashed out on a 50" telly so I wouldn't have to wear glasses to watch it, I'll be damned if I ever buy a telly that requires me to wear glasses.
|
|
Is that why you had to buy a big car as well?
|
>>I splashed out on a 50" telly so I wouldn't have to wear glasses to watch it,...
Same here, although I made do with a more modest 42".
|
>> >>I splashed out on a 50" telly so I wouldn't have to wear glasses to
>> watch it,...
>>
>> Same here, although I made do with a more modest 42".
>>
Eh? eyesight/glasses dictate the distance at which you can focus on the screen, a larger screen does not help if at a distance at which you cannot focus without glasses.
|
"eyesight/glasses dictate the distance at which you can focus on the screen, a larger screen does not help if at a distance at which you cannot focus without glasses."
It helps to read footie scores and subtitles if they are bigger even if they are blurred.
|
>> It helps to read footie scores and subtitles if they are bigger even if they
>> are blurred.
>>
Gotcha.
|
|
Yes, and the same reason I'm well hung.
|
I bought a 3D Blueray player to be future proof though dont want to wear complex glasses to watch TV not to mention the fact that the only 3D content today is expensive and limited Blueray and the glasses cost iro £100, so £500 for our family yet alone accomodating guests.
|
>> Is that why you had to buy a big car as well?
>>
His eyesight has probably deteriorated to the point that he needs to have a big car so that he can find it!
We all know that watching a large TV from a short distance makes one go blind ;)
|
I saw a bit of a CGI kids film in a shop recently. The effect didn't impress me at all. It just seemed that the film stuck out from the TV by about an inch. It was certainly not immersive in
any way.
It may well have been a film that had 3D added by post-processing, rather than one which had been filmed in 3D to begin with - which I believe makes a big difference.
In the long term, I don't think that most people will feel that 3D films are more enjoyable than 2D films - and so this current resurgence of 3D will die like the previous ones did.
I think perhaps there may be more demand for 3D gaming though, perhaps especially with first person perspective games (first person shooters, driving games etc)
|
>> I think perhaps there may be more demand for 3D gaming though, perhaps especially with
>> first person perspective games (first person shooters, driving games etc)
Yes, I'd like to try that.
|
>> Just had a mooch round Comet, and they had a 3D TV with some glasses
>> you could try. It worked, and it was quite impressive in a 'that's different' sort
>> of way, but it didn't make me want to get my wallet out.
>>
>> The programme being shown had some kids standing around in a woodland with a witch-like
>> character. The kids stood out from the background ok, but they looked flat, like cardboard
>> cut-outs.
I had a look at a Sony setup a while back, my thoughts were precisely the same - flat cut-outs against a background. Pointless gimmick IMHO - but then the manufacturers and retailers always need something new to try and flog us.
Seems we're not alone judging by this survey:-
www.reghardware.com/2010/12/22/world_3d_tv_demand/
|
By coincidence, while killing time waiting for SWMBO, I was looking at a Samsung 3D TV and picked up the brochure.
FYI there are two types of glasses.
Rechargable - 2 hours to charge & 30 hrs viewing
Battery - 40-50 hours viewing.
"Recommended viewing distance for 46" TV is 1.5 to 3 metres"
|
I like TV but, the thing is, I don't want a cinema experience for most of my TV watching. It doesn't make the programmes any better, and I'm usually working/reading/posting on here at the same time anyway!
I think 1.5m from a 46" screen would give me the screaming hab dabs. We have a 26" thing in the corner of the room about 3-4m away - watchable, or more or less ignorable if someone else wants to watch and I don't.
An 'immersive' experience seems to me to be in the mind of the beholder - I can get immersed in a good radio play. On the other hand, if you've no imagination, I don't think 3D TV is going to help - it's novel, but nowhere near realistic.
|
My thoughts exactly, Manatee.
|
cant say i want to wear glasses for watching tv
however the imax experiance at bradford is certainly worth exploring,i saw titanic a few years back in 3d and really enjoyed the experiance
just seen this......www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12100925
Last edited by: Bellboy on Sat 1 Jan 11 at 12:34
|
>> cant say i want to wear glasses for watching tv
I think that they are making inroads into removing the need for glasses
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3DTV#Full_3D_TV_sets
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereoscopic
they must realise that if there is any chance of 3D catching on (which I still reckon there isn't) then they must get rid of the glasses
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Sat 1 Jan 11 at 13:45
|
3D TV is a big profit making con by most television manufacturers - just have a look at the actual specs.
I know quite a few in the audio visual appliance trade and they wouldn't entertain one in their own home (not that they are managing to sell that many in any case)...:-)
|
>> I think that they are making inroads into removing the need for glasses
>>
I saw a prototype Phlips TV in Madrid earlier in the year, er last year, the 3D effect was good though the apparent resolution was poor. I dont think peope will sacrifice resolution or percived image quality for 3D.
There is talk about standard polarising lenses doing the job in which case convetional specs could be built with polarising lenses and simply over the counter non prescription polarising specs could be sold very cheaply negating the need for the special and expensive specs currently required.
|
|
BBC Click program covers some of the 3D stuff & super super high def TV.
|
3D TV - Zero
