Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Will 3D TV replace flat screen TV in our homes in future?
- Thread starter coolwater
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, but only because within a couple of years non 3d HD televisions will no longer be sold.
(Though it will be quite a while before we transition to glasses free 3d, if ever.)
(Though it will be quite a while before we transition to glasses free 3d, if ever.)
Many manufacturers are developing 3DTVs so that you do not need to wear glasses at all.
No, 3D is a gimmick, it exists as a gimmick and only has 2 benefits,
1), more revenue for the studios who get to charge idiots more money to see a film that been filmed in 2D, and poorly converted to 3D (Recient examples, Thor, Clash of the Titans, Priest) -
2), Studios percive that 3D movies reduce piracy as pirates are obviously to stupid to be able to figure out how to put a filter over the camera lens to perform a TeleSync recording in the cinima.
Until we get true "Star Trek" level projected image holographic technology 3D is an annoying gimmick at best (with glass required) or a tech they cant figure out how to use properly because its in its infancy (glasses free tech, which at the moment cant support multiple viewers or wide angle viewing)
1), more revenue for the studios who get to charge idiots more money to see a film that been filmed in 2D, and poorly converted to 3D (Recient examples, Thor, Clash of the Titans, Priest) -
2), Studios percive that 3D movies reduce piracy as pirates are obviously to stupid to be able to figure out how to put a filter over the camera lens to perform a TeleSync recording in the cinima.
Until we get true "Star Trek" level projected image holographic technology 3D is an annoying gimmick at best (with glass required) or a tech they cant figure out how to use properly because its in its infancy (glasses free tech, which at the moment cant support multiple viewers or wide angle viewing)
Course!
Infact I wished I had waited a couple of years before jumping on the HD bandwagon. Only bought our 46" Bravia 2 years ago and now you can buy pretty much the same model but with 3D for the same price.
Ho hum
. I can wait till they perfect it a little. But I can't wait to play 3D games in the comfort of my own home. My cousin's home has a 3DTV in nearly every room in his house, with Sky 3D and PS3's... brilliant tech I say.
Infact I wished I had waited a couple of years before jumping on the HD bandwagon. Only bought our 46" Bravia 2 years ago and now you can buy pretty much the same model but with 3D for the same price.
Ho hum
. I can wait till they perfect it a little. But I can't wait to play 3D games in the comfort of my own home. My cousin's home has a 3DTV in nearly every room in his house, with Sky 3D and PS3's... brilliant tech I say.There was an item re 3D on a recent BBC 'Click' programme; it came down to the use of holograms - light - being the way to get the correct distance relationships, the other stuff is nothing more than fluff. A basic system was shown - akin to the first TVs invented.
Cheers,
OW
Course!
Infact I wished I had waited a couple of years before jumping on the HD bandwagon. Only bought our 46" Bravia 2 years ago and now you can buy pretty much the same model but with 3D for the same price.
Ho hum
You should be replacing your TV every 1.5-2 years anyway. Just buy a new one.
No I shouldn't. The quality of my current TV is brilliant, I'll be sticking with this well until the next big thing is out and standardised (be it even higher resolutions or 3D).
Agreed, a TV has no reason to be replaced within 12-24 months...that's kind of absurd IMO.
I keep a TV for at LEAST five years, and usually then there is still something else in the house I'd rather replace.
The Sharp Aquos 1080p I have from 2007 still looks fantastic. It'd be a complete waste of money to toss it aside for another which wouldn't be a whole lot different in reality.
The answer is no. Why? Because 3-D to work properly requires a REALLY big screen like what you see in a theater.
The more likely big step forward will be true 2000-line displays, which (in my opinion!) may become part of the ATSC standard by 2015. We'll see 3840x2160 displays capable of displaying 48 frames per second, which is so clear that you might as well be looking at a moving high-resolution photograph.
The more likely big step forward will be true 2000-line displays, which (in my opinion!) may become part of the ATSC standard by 2015. We'll see 3840x2160 displays capable of displaying 48 frames per second, which is so clear that you might as well be looking at a moving high-resolution photograph.
Yes. Once it becomes affordable to price 3D TVs at an entry level prices, I think all new TVs will be "3D-Ready".
Whether there will actually be content that is worth watching in 3D is an entirely different question.
Whether there will actually be content that is worth watching in 3D is an entirely different question.
When 3D technology reaches the point where I don't need glasses and I don't need to be within some sweet-spot to see the 3D, I'll get one. It's gonna be a while.
Until then, I'm fine with 2D LCD.
Until then, I'm fine with 2D LCD.
You would replace a TV that is 1 and a half years old?! That's crazy talk.
I don't even want to upgrade from a DS to a 3DS. I have a PS3, and I'm always thinking about buying more Blu Ray movies, but there honestly aren't that many movies that would benefit from HD picture. Other than very recent movies, getting a movie on Blu Ray is pointless. Even many movies filmed through the 80's and 90's will only see a minor improvement on Blu-Ray. Basically, it's pointless to buy a new media player of any kind unless there is a decent amount of content already available for it. There is a huge push right now to upgrade your TVs and media player for basically a handful of movies in 3D, most of which aren't any good. If you have money burning a hole in your pocket, go for it. For the normal consumer, just get an HDTV. They're starting to get cheap, upscaled DVDs look good on them, and HD broadcasts are beginning to become widespread.
For the love of God, I hate the 3DTV push.
I am perfectly happy with my HDTV, thankyouverymuch.
I second the guy above saying they should work on depth perception rather than cheap 3D parlor tricks.
I am perfectly happy with my HDTV, thankyouverymuch.
I second the guy above saying they should work on depth perception rather than cheap 3D parlor tricks.
Yes it will. Look at what Samsung is doing. They predict a 55 inch 3D TV with a glasses free screen within 10 years. Their design has 30 separate fields of view around the TV.
The size of the display doesn't have anything to do with it. 3D tech is just tech that models what your eyes naturally do. Can you see an object in 3D if it's not the size of a theatre screen? Of course you can.
Anything that records live video uses light by nature and retains distance information. This includes 3D cameras/camcorders. The only variable is a parallax adjustment, which scales the depth of the image.
The biggest problem right now with adopting glasses free displays is the accomodation response. You look at a 3D screen and for a small period of time, you have no clue what to focus on so your eyes focus all over the place and you get headaches.
Another problem is field of view - exploiting the parallax barrier so the sweet spot isn't limited to one person directly in front of it. The 3DS and every other commercial lenticular screen has one narrow sweet spot. You can't do this with a TV because you need to be able to see the 3D image regardless if you're moving around or sitting off center, sitting 5 feet back or 20 feet back. One solution is what Samsung is designing - a multi-view TV with 30 separate parallax barriers.
The size of the display doesn't have anything to do with it. 3D tech is just tech that models what your eyes naturally do. Can you see an object in 3D if it's not the size of a theatre screen? Of course you can.
Anything that records live video uses light by nature and retains distance information. This includes 3D cameras/camcorders. The only variable is a parallax adjustment, which scales the depth of the image.
The biggest problem right now with adopting glasses free displays is the accomodation response. You look at a 3D screen and for a small period of time, you have no clue what to focus on so your eyes focus all over the place and you get headaches.
Another problem is field of view - exploiting the parallax barrier so the sweet spot isn't limited to one person directly in front of it. The 3DS and every other commercial lenticular screen has one narrow sweet spot. You can't do this with a TV because you need to be able to see the 3D image regardless if you're moving around or sitting off center, sitting 5 feet back or 20 feet back. One solution is what Samsung is designing - a multi-view TV with 30 separate parallax barriers.
Thats not entirely true..its nearly impossible to buy a camera now a days that dosent also record video
(HD Video at that)True but if you are shooting for hours at a time you really want a true video camera.Thats not entirely true..its nearly impossible to buy a camera now a days that dosent also record video
Sure 3D TVs will replace 2D only sets.
But not because customers want it, because manufacturers think that we do. Personally I think high hertz is where the future lies, fortunately all 3d tvs have high hertz (because in 3D mode the framerate is halved) so I'm happy as a clam.
Where it will be really immersive will be in console games where 3D will be useful.
But not because customers want it, because manufacturers think that we do. Personally I think high hertz is where the future lies, fortunately all 3d tvs have high hertz (because in 3D mode the framerate is halved) so I'm happy as a clam.
Where it will be really immersive will be in console games where 3D will be useful.