Can anyone talk to me about 3D HDTVs?

[GFLPraxis]

So, noob question time.

I actually know almost nothing about the newer 3D technology. I've yet to watch a 3D movie, and I kind of overlooked talk about 3D HDTVs because it seemed like a gimmick; until CES this week, and suddenly, it's everywhere.

I know nothing about it, and Google doesn't seem to bring up anything conclusive, just a bunch of CES articles. Even Wikipedia's article contains no solid information or links; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_HDTV

I've yet to actually purchase an HDTV, believe it or not; still running on my 52" SDTV, which functions well. I probably will be buying my first HDTV in the next year, now that I have a PS3.

So, I need to ask a few questions about this new technology.

* Is there going to be any kind of a format war?

* Is there any reason to reserve purchasing a 3D TV, assuming they aren't hideously expensive compared to a similarly-spec'd HDTV; say, a better spec that will emerge in a year or two (much like early HDTVs were 1080i)?

* How does the technology work? Will the glasses cost a fortune to stock a significant number of?

* Any thoughts on the odds of it becoming standard or simply being a gimmick a la UMD?

* If I spend the money on a large 1080p LED HDTV without 3D support this year, am I likely to regret it?



Thanks

 

[Gav2k]

There is so many different kinds of 3d TVs in he pipeline at the moment. Some use glasses some use a dual screen technology some have shutters of sorts. Tbh buy a nice HDTV set 3d is just the big hype word at the moment.

 

[MRU]

So, I need to ask a few questions about this new technology.

* Is there going to be any kind of a format war?

Isn't there always to some extent ? I don't necessarily see a format war exactly, but with some many different ways of implementing the format to achieve the same result.

That being said BluRay 3D format for sending the signal to these 3D TV's is meant to be under review, and if approved will at least mean a standard of some type, even if the implementation on the TV side varies (much like how Plasma, LCD, LED screens achieve the same HDTV albeit with different technology).


* Is there any reason to reserve purchasing a 3D TV, assuming they aren't hideously expensive compared to a similarly-spec'd HDTV; say, a better spec that will emerge in a year or two (much like early HDTVs were 1080i)?


I would image they will be bloody expensive. I don't think a different spec will emerge, however undoubtably the technology its based upon will improve over time (and get cheaper).


* How does the technology work? Will the glasses cost a fortune to stock a significant number of?

I'm assuming a TV will come with a few of them and I am hoping that they are standardized for all manufacturers so that they are interchangeable, as this will reduce costs and mean 3rd party glasses will reach market very quickly. However I suspect initially each manufacturer of 3DTV's will require you to wear 'their' brand of glasses making them expensive initially.

* Any thoughts on the odds of it becoming standard or simply being a gimmick a la UMD?

The thing is 3D is more the next widescreen, than the next UMD. Broadcasters who have already switched to digital and HDTV require little extra facilities to record in 3D and many broadcaster are already upgrading their equipment. Likewise with digital recording for films / movies - the facility to record 3D movies has become much easier, hence a hell of a lot of films now automatically recorded in 3D for imax etc.. theaters.

Whether it catches on though is a different question. I'm not sure how many people at home want to wear grey glasses when they sit down to watch TV.

* If I spend the money on a large 1080p LED HDTV without 3D support this year, am I likely to regret it?

Probably not. I'm an early adopter of technology, but I'm unlikely to invest in 3DTV for at least another few years yet. HDTV on the other hand will improve your viewing experience immediately.

 

[apfhex]

Whether it catches on though is a different question. I'm not sure how many people at home want to wear grey glasses when they sit down to watch TV.

As long as this is true I think it will always be a gimmick. As it stands I don't see why you couldn't just get a movie in 3D format and use the same type of glasses they give you at the theater. It's not like the theater is using a different projector, you shouldn't need a new TV, unless there's something about current LCDs that hinders the experience? I really have no idea what sorts of technologies these TV manufactures are putting into their "3D TVs".

 

[Sdashiki]

Until its 3D without the glasses (impossible at this point in the technology) there is nothing to see here but a bunch of rich people (both buyers AND sellers) complaining about how the next big thing is gonna be awesome yet not knowing how it works in the real world.

i.e. NO ONE IN THE WORLD is going to buy 3D glasses and keep them in their living room, bedroom, tv room, den, whatever...let alone purchase extra pairs should you lose, break or have guests over. Theyd have to be free, super cheap, easy to clean, etc.

I love the concept, its so "flying cars cool". But the reality, just like flying cars, is a big sober wakeup call to how the real world works.

TVs work because they just do. 3D TVs require more than just turning on to work...they require YOU the viewer to actively participate in the viewing...and from the way alot of people "watch tv" its just not gonna work for how ubiquitous the TV has become in the modern home.

 

[stainlessliquid]

I think the good 3d tech needs to operate at 240hz or something, any 240hz tv is going to be super expensive.

 

[mrgreen4242]

I think the good 3d tech needs to operate at 240hz or something, any 240hz tv is going to be super expensive.

You can do HD with 120hz. Most implementations I've seen at the moment are 120hz (60hz to each eye), though some are doing 240hz now. I prefer 60hz (per eye) simply because the adaptive motion filtering being done on the 120hz (per eye) sets is really ugly to me.

i.e. NO ONE IN THE WORLD is going to buy 3D glasses and keep them in their living room, bedroom, tv room, den, whatever...let alone purchase extra pairs should you lose, break or have guests over. Theyd have to be free, super cheap, easy to clean, etc.

I would, as long as they are passive, light weight affairs like the current generation of cinema 3D glasses. I, like many people, have a dedicated theater room in my house and I enjoy going in, turning down the lights, and watching a movie on a big screen (100") with surround sound, etc. I would certainly buy and wear passive 3D glasses.

In fact, I've not made the jump to HD yet either (projector is a 480p model and looks fine with my DVD rips) and probably won't until I can get an HD projector that uses polarized filters to deliver 3D movies.

 

[Taustin Powers]

Just buy a nice HDTV now (they've gotten fairly inexpensive!), and wait and watch the market on the whole 3D thing. No one knows if it will really catch on, and if it does, it will take many years to become reasonably affordable.

 

[Sdashiki]

I, like many people, have a dedicated theater room in my house and I enjoy going in, turning down the lights, and watching a movie on a big screen (100") with surround sound, etc. I would certainly buy and wear passive 3D glasses.

I dont know where you get your figures but a TV in a room with a place to sit in front of it is guaranteed found in every home. But a home theater...I doubt your idea of "many people" having one.

Just because a handful of people want/use something, doesnt make it the ubiquitous thing they are trying to do.

 

[0098386]

We're not even at a position where we can just turn on a TV and have everything beamed in at 1080p... I think 3D is still a long way off.

 

[sikkinixx]

We're not even at a position where we can just turn on a TV and have everything beamed in at 1080p... I think 3D is still a long way off.

because we waste precious bandwidth on wankers who need SD channels because they still live in the goddamn stone age. (okay that's a bit harsh...)

 

[rezenclowd3]

because we waste precious bandwidth on wankers who need SD channels because they still live in the goddamn stone age. (okay that's a bit harsh...)

HD Cable/Sat is still too expensive IMO. I'll spend the cost difference in race fees though;-) SD tv is still fine for me, even though I would prefer to see it in HD on my HD set....

SD tv bill, internet bill, cell bill, Xbox Live bill, Netflix bill, etc etc etc I myself take the cheapest options usually. I'd rather be out and about than sit on the couch eating chips and dip.

/me grabs my Cannondale mountain bike :-D

Actually, 3d tv w/o glasses was shown at CES, HOWEVER, it is said that there are only 8 spots one can stand/sit where it is viewable. Hmmm, I guess we will have to sit in different rooms to watch a tv in the same household. Sucks for having a large group for a movie, or superbowl eh? ;-)

IF 3d tv is made to view w/o glasses, and has as wide a viewing angle experience as current tv's, sure it'll catch on.

I just saw Avatar in 3d, while the 3d was good, it was actually almost so natural that I barely noticed it. We already view our world in 3d eh? Just hated wearing 2 sets of glasses as I'm a 4 eyes kind of guy.

 

[gkarris]

I guess if you have a PS3 then it's just a firmware upgrade.... but you still need a 3D HD set...

Otherwise, people have to buy a new HD Set, a new 3D capable Blu-ray player, the glasses setup, and then discs which would probably cost more than the 2d versions, in today's economy?

It's at least 3 years off...

 

[MRU]

It's at least 3 years off...

and if as predicted Blu-Ray is actually only a transitory platform and in 3 years all our HD content will be accessed via download, then it'll make it even more mute. Of course new TV's will probably come with built in operating systems to allow downloading from the main stores (netflix etc...)

I love technology, and love adopting as soon as I think price is going in the right direction (hell I bought Laserdisc, MiniDisc, Philips DCC, HD-DVD) but I will hold my boots with 3DTV.

 

[peskaa]

Until its 3D without the glasses (impossible at this point in the technology) there is nothing to see here but a bunch of rich people (both buyers AND sellers) complaining about how the next big thing is gonna be awesome yet not knowing how it works in the real world.

Actually, CES saw some demonstrations of glasses-less 3D screens. Currently they need the viewer to be in a particular spot in front of the screen, but they work.

 

[Sdashiki]

Actually, CES saw some demonstrations of glasses-less 3D screens. Currently they need the viewer to be in a particular spot in front of the screen, but they work.

Thats a different definition of "it works" then Im used to when talking about my TV.

Viewing angles plagued many-a-tv over the past decade...why go backwards.

 

[spyker3292]

There are so many new types of glasses-3D that just kind of popped up at CES (now that every TV manufacturer needs to make their own 3D TV...). I know I won't be getting a 3D TV anytime soon, but I'm excited to try them out at, say... Best Buy. After seeing Avatar I'm convinced that 3D doesn't always need to be a gimmick, it can actually add the the movie too. It will also be interesting to see 3D games, Sony really seems to have some plans for that.

 

[cube]

Actually, CES saw some demonstrations of glasses-less 3D screens. Currently they need the viewer to be in a particular spot in front of the screen, but they work.

Such screens have been demoed for years. I won't be waiting for them to become acceptable.

 

[rezenclowd3]

A decent article by IGN about 3d gaming:

Editorial: 3D is the New Waggle

 

[Nermal]

and if as predicted Blu-Ray is actually only a transitory platform and in 3 years all our HD content will be accessed via download, then it'll make it even more mute.

Silent movies aside, although I see the "downloads are the future" argument a lot, I really don't think that it'll be commonplace in three years' time. In three years, file sizes will have increased (look at 700 MB movies from a few years ago vs the multi-GB ones now), bandwidth requirements will therefore be higher, and ISPs will still be charging whatever they can get away with.

At present, I have to add $3-5 onto any HD movie rental due to ISP charges. As they get bigger, those costs will increase, and the convenience of a download will begin to be overtaken by the cheaper option of renting a physical Blu-ray (not to mention that the physical rental shops will fight to stay in the market).

But I digress. This is a discussion on 3D, so I need to mention it! I believe that the Blu-ray 3D spec is ready to go, and Sony will be supporting it in the PS3. It seems likely that Sony will produce a list of requirements or recommendations for the technology on the official PS3 website (if it's not there already; I don't own a PS3). Keep an eye on what Sony says, because after all, if you're using a Sony player then you'll want your TV to support the same 3D technology as Sony.

 

[Antares]

I don't fully understand why you would need a new tv for "Avatar-like" 3D. Using the most simplified explanation of 3D, you just need to display two slightly offset images (blended at different points for different levels of 3D). If the source outputting the image handles all of the processing, the tv would just need to display the single image....especially if only a single signal is being sent to the TV.

For example, I was at Fry's last weekend and saw a Nvidia display kiosk. It was showing demos of 3d games and movies on a standard computer....with that Nvidia card. You put on the glasses and the 3D quality was the same as you saw in Avatar. If you took the glasses off, the images on the screen looked exactly the same as if you took your glasses off during Avatar. And they were using a standard computer lcd monitor. The upgraded graphics card was the only thing required to power the 3D images/movies.

I really think that new 3D TV's are a ploy to sell more TV's. Most current LCD HDTV's should be able to display Avatar-like 3D movies just fine (with glasses).

 

[rezenclowd3]

Like you stated, 3d movies are 2 overlayed images. As light does not interfere with itself, this is possible. I believe movie theaters then use 2 projectors at the same time for 3d movies. As our standard HDTVs (and older) can only display one color per pixel area, not 2 as is needed. Avatar also was not separating red and blue, hence why we used 90º polarized glasses if I am correct.

Anyone going to see Avatar again, tilt your head with the glasses on. You'll notice the 3d effect disappearing.

 

[elistan]

The bulb on my 3yo Mitsubishi DLP HDTV burned out a few weeks ago, and while waiting for the replacement to arrive, out of curiosity I checked what their equivalent DLP offerings were. (Turns out I could get a new TV that's 8" bigger for $800 less. Go figure.) Anyway, looking at their webpage I see they claim that ALL their TV's are "3D ready." From what I can tell, from a technical standpoint this means their TVs can be used with LCD shutter glasses - the display itself is fast enough to switch between the left-eye and right-eye views without loss of image quality, and from what I can tell has an interface port on the back of the TV that a transmitter plugs in to in order to sync the LCD shutter glasses.

People talk about the new 3D HDTVs being expensive, and a ploy to get people to spend more money - but the Mitsubishi DLP starts at $1200 for a 60" unit. That's pretty cheap in my book. Of course, it relies on powered LCD shutter glasses, rather than passive polarized glasses, or no glasses at all. (Are there any polarized TVs out there yet? Maybe those are the expensive sets people are talking about?)

Mitsubishi doesn't talk about encoding format - there doesn't appear to be a standard right now. It works with some NVidia graphics cards I think - but in the future, their current offerings might be obsolete. Or, hopefully, firmware upgradable to new encoding standards.

http://www.mitsubishi-tv.com/
http://www.dlp.com/hdtv/dlp-features/3d-hdtv.aspx