Will 3D TV replace flat screen TV in our homes in future?

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by coolwater, May 9, 2011.

  1. coolwater macrumors 6502a

    coolwater

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    #1
    Camcorders did not replace cameras despite some people thought that would be the case.

    Will 3D TV (without having to wear those silly glasses) replace flat screen TV in future?
     
  2. puma1552 macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
  3. faustfire macrumors 6502a

    faustfire

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    California
    #3
    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.)
     
  4. Shaun.P macrumors 68000

    Shaun.P

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2003
    Location:
    Omicron Persei 8
    #4
    Many manufacturers are developing 3DTVs so that you do not need to wear glasses at all.
     
  5. Nightarchaon macrumors 65816

    Nightarchaon

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    #5
    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)
     
  6. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #6
    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.
     
  7. oscillatewildly macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Location:
    23 Railway Cuttings
    #7
    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
     
  8. omegaphil6 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    Fort Myers Florida
    #8

    You should be replacing your TV every 1.5-2 years anyway. Just buy a new one.
     
  9. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #9
    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).
     
  10. puma1552 macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    #10
    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.
     
  11. SactoGuy18 macrumors 68020

    SactoGuy18

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2006
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA USA
    #11
    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.
     
  12. benhollberg macrumors 68020

    benhollberg

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    #12
    Yes but only when 3D TV is actually 3D and not just a distorted 2D image.
     
  13. roadbloc macrumors G3

    roadbloc

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Location:
    UK
  14. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #14
    Of course they will. It's a natural progression.
     
  15. DeaconGraves macrumors 65816

    DeaconGraves

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    #15
    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.
     
  16. RawBert macrumors 68000

    RawBert

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Location:
    North Hollywood, CA
    #16
    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.
     
  17. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #18
    3-D is pointless and stupid. They need to focus on 4k sets that give true depth perception, a much more realistic image than 3D. The human eye doesn't even see 3D so why should our TV's do it.
     
  18. Patrick946 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    #19
    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.
     
  19. ravenvii macrumors 604

    ravenvii

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Location:
    Melenkurion Skyweir
    #20
    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.
     
  20. Liquorpuki macrumors 68020

    Liquorpuki

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Location:
    City of Angels
    #21
    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.
     
  21. squeeks macrumors 68040

    squeeks

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Florida
    #22
    Thats not entirely true..its nearly impossible to buy a camera now a days that dosent also record video :) (HD Video at that)
     
  22. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #23
    True but if you are shooting for hours at a time you really want a true video camera.
     
  23. 7on macrumors 601

    7on

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2003
    Location:
    Dress Rosa
    #24
    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.
     
  24. Liquorpuki macrumors 68020

    Liquorpuki

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Location:
    City of Angels
    #25
    Have you ever watched a movie or TV show where the high hertz made you feel like you're watching a cheap home video? I have. Sports though, gotta have a high freq.
     

Share This Page