Glasses-Free 3D Coming to TV Next Week

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

I am so not interested in 3d, it ruins films. I just want to set and enjoy them without have crap poking at me from the screen for the sake of have crap poking at me. And yes 3d may work on the huge cinema screen, but how will it work on a normal tv screen? They gonna hype it as the next big thing, like they did with HD tv's. And yes the picture is clearer but hardly the next big thing.....the future of gaming...using a tv that is slightly my clearer than your usual tv.

ultimateownage:

Aura Guardian:
Just like HD tvs. And look what happened.

HD tvs weren't gimmicks, they made the picture more detailed and advanced the technology. I'm not saying this doesn't advance the technology, but it advances it in a way that just causes eye strain and makes things cost twice has much. The price may go down, but the uselessness of the technology won't.

Kris015:

Why do you hate 3D so much?

It's just a part of the future.

Because it's part of the future I hate. The future full of materialistic twats that destroyed the environment and lost all sense of real life socialising because they were too busy with their Facebook and 3D farmville.

Fair 'nuff. Let's hope 3D Farmville never happens..

Well I will accept 3D (won't buy it oh hell no) because it is a step until there is holograms Mass Effect style (making porn movies and video games so much better), but it does surprise me how far human beings have come in these past 10 or so years, with technology, I remember when mobile phones that could play snake were amazing now we have touchscreens with 1000s of apps and now we're getting glasses-free 3D.

Can't wait to see the rule of our robot overlords by 2020

It sounds interesting, I hate wearing 3D glasses because they hurt my face, but 3D with out the glasses could be good.

including one with a 21-inch screen that would cost a few thousand dollars.

hahahahahahahahahahaha...no

A 21" 3D TV will not sell many units if they cost thousands. Just my 2 cents.

InterAirplay:
There was a lot of fanfare around color television. Your average punter responded to this with "cool, but I can't just go spending money on some fancy gimmick like that". Then, that same average punter was glad he waited, because eventually color TV was everywhere, and cheap.

I think this particular story is just as valid today.

nicely said, quoting you because comments like that get ignored around here for some reason.

The glasses stuff is cheap enough to build into every TV so long as the glasses are separate so that may be forced on the consumer
this way is very expensive to fit to the TV but way more saleable but expect that so long as we keep talling the manufacturers that 3D is nice we just won't pay extra for it they'll build it into most TV's one day.

If you don't like it don't buy it. The consumer is king on the global market after all, but please don't feel the need to bitch about advances in technology. The truth of the matter is that on the path to this new design of a 3D tv several other advances were likely achieved, and in another decade most of you may be reaping the benefits of whatever will be. However, keep in mind that I do agree that the scientific minds developing this nonsense could have been put to much better use, but they went where the money was, all that sweet consumer cash flow...

Or we could just blame James Cameron.

Baldr:

Aura Guardian:
Just like HD tvs. And look what happened.

I doubt the Government is going to step in this time and force all broadcast into 3D, and force the consumer to upgrade or buy some converter box.

That's not what happened at all. I still have a standard definition TV, and I know a lot of other people who as well.

And, I'm pretty sure 3D TV is a lot more impressive to the casual consumer than "higher definition." I'm pretty sure the casual consumer doesn't even know what higher definition means, actually.

Sony just got pwned.
HA!

Troop18546:

Jack and Calumon:

Tom Goldman:
It was reported earlier this year by Japanese newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun that Toshiba would be putting glasses-free 3D televisions on the market by the end of 2010, including one with a 21-inch screen that would cost a few thousand dollars. The truth of this report may be revealed on Monday.

...
The fuck?

If monday proves this to be true then I will never adopt 3D for at least 4 years. Maybe even 8. Not until I can buy a TV that is 40+ inch (Don't want to downgrade on size), 3D, HD, No glasses that is under NINE THOUSSAAAANNNDD!!

Yes I had to do that.

Calumon: No you didn't, and why do rich guys get access to this other Dimension? It's not fair...

You have got to be the biggest moron I've ever read a post from. 40inch my ****...

Your pretty stars? They are pretty.

40 inch isn't absurdly big. Do you want one? Or maybe, you want to go bigger?

Also congratulations on being the first person to hate on my posts in about a week. But directly insulting me? Ouch, reported.

Calumon: They're getting big enough, you could make a whole house out of them!

"one foot to thirty meters away."

Your metrics are imperially confusing.

Screw 3DHDTV.....

Give me a HOLODECK anyday!!!!

I was banking on 3D dying but if they keep pushing it and make it viable and eventually a hell of a lot cheaper...

Is it just me or does anyone else feel like the 3D effect is pretty negligible fifteen minutes into the experience. Like I'm always really impressed by it for twenty minutes then my mind sort of forgets its there. That said, I will be buying a 3DS on day one.

HD TVs were gimmicks, and look at it now.

>>cost a few thousand dollars

I think anyone with this amount of income won't have that much sense, sadly. Hope it works out for Toshiba, though, especially if it isn't just touting stereoscopic 3D only visible from a single point that may not even be inside your TV room.

EDIT:

Delusibeta:
HD TVs were gimmicks, and look at it now.

HD TV's have always been gimmicks, and have always been around since television first cropped up. Especially a little HD TV gimmick called color, and that really never caught on.

Seriously, though. Can we stop throwing the word "gimmick" around? It's getting relatively annoying, especially since everything was a "gimmick" at one point in time.

Interesting, but it'll probably cost more than your average car. Or be incredibly small.

This is worth considering in my book as it doesn't have the retardation of glasses based 3d that is too few = on to standard tv and also to make it more 3d you need a special pair of £100 glasses. To be honest I would need to think though would I prefer a bigger tv in hd or 3d. I'd probably still go for the bigger tv.

Sony is going to be super pissed.

Heart of Darkness:
>>cost a few thousand dollars

I think anyone with this amount of income won't have that much sense, sadly. Hope it works out for Toshiba, though, especially if it isn't just touting stereoscopic 3D only visible from a single point that may not even be inside your TV room.

EDIT:

Delusibeta:
HD TVs were gimmicks, and look at it now.

HD TV's have always been gimmicks, and have always been around since television first cropped up. Especially a little HD TV gimmick called color, and that really never caught on.

Seriously, though. Can we stop throwing the word "gimmick" around? It's getting relatively annoying, especially since everything was a "gimmick" at one point in time.

I wouldn't call things gimmicks, more another option that more often than not is stupid by comparison to something else. This TV version (the non glasses 3d) isn't a gimmick but the clever option for the 3d tv user. And all 5 of them who now own a 3d tv will sell them on ebay as soon as this one rears it's head, so long as they have an ounce of intelligence.

Get back to me when I can buy one for $500. And then we'll talk.

If Toshiba pulls this off they just made their brass ring. Other companies will just license the tech from them instead of making the effort on their own glassless 3D.
Me? It gonna be a long long looooooonnnng time before I spend a dollar on a 3DTV.

For.I.Am.Mad:
Forget 3D. I want Holodecks, where the holograms can become self-aware and evil.

Who cares? How does 3D make the movie better? Answer: It doesn't. I saw Avatar in 3D. I spent the first 20 minutes actively looking for the 3D effects to make it worth the extra money, and then gave up because it didn't really matter. And guess what. I saw Avatar on DVD in 2D and it was just as good as it was in the theater. The 3D didn't make the movie better.

Would Top Gun be better in 3D? Terminator? Tron? The Dark Knight? Star Wars? Raiders of the Lost Ark? Blade Runner? Silence of the Lambs? Can you say any beloved movie would be BETTER in 3D? I can't.

The only exception was My Bloody Valentine. But that was a bad movie that the 3D made vaguely scary (things flying at you and all). That movie was worthless otherwise.

In other words, 3D is only worthwhile as a gimmick for bad horror movies.

Oh, and I don't need grenades and bullets flying out of my TV while I play video games either.

It sounds like the TV industry saying "Thank-you early 3DTV adopters for already buying a new 3DTV. We hope you'll continue your early adopting practices and buy a 2nd 3DTV in another year or 2."

Seriously? Last year I was thinking of splurging & upgrading from my 720p TV to a 1080p one. Now, they're constantly updating TV tech, & I'm thinking screw it. I'll wait until the dust has settled, & the TV industry knows what the heck the new standard's finally going to be. I'm not going to spend a grand or 2 just to be kicking myself for not waiting 1 more year for the even cooler tv that just came out. I'm all for advancing tech, but I expect my PC to seem outdated in a year, not my TV.

Baldr:

Aura Guardian:
Just like HD tvs. And look what happened.

I doubt the Government is going to step in this time and force all broadcast into 3D, and force the consumer to upgrade or buy some converter box.

Excellent point.
(Off topic:Perfect picture is nice, but totally losing the picture due to a borderline signal is FAR more annoying than any amount of snow or static ever was! But hey, who am I to argue? The government knows best. Right?)

It just seems like a profligate investment for the standard consumer. After the big 3D "experience" in the theater, is it really that feasible to try and simulate the same experience every time you watch the movie? I can't see 3D anymore, but even if I still could, it would only be once in a blue moon. So several grand on a TV to use what amounts to a rather gimmicky feature a couple times a month, maybe?

On the plus side, perhaps the price of standard HDTVs will drop enough where I can buy a screen big enough for the side of my house.

PayNSprayBandit:
Didn't Spielberg promise us this technology like five years ago?

its 2010, I'm still waiting for my fucking flying car.

OT: Im jumping in with the 3D Gimmick group; I have yet to see a 3D film and I plan not to for a while. But if a glasses-free 3D Television actually works and has a viable price, I might check it out.

but I am standing really close to the people that want the Holodecks, that would be awesome.

imagine if you could hook it up to the internet and forums were mainly just people standing in one room, good times would ensue

Somenone at Sony must be in a lot of grief right now

I seriously doubt it.

There is no way they invented a suitable replacement for stereoscopic 3D shutter glasses, of which are quite a technical marvel. There is just no way. It will be some half-assed, gimmicky and unsatisfying experience.

The only reason people are not buying 3D is because it's too expensive, and it's ultimately not worth it, because there are only a handful of movies every year that people would consider "3D worthy". These are the high-profile, super high-budget mega-flix like Avatar, or the once-in-a-while cheesy Resident Evil types.

I have a 50" plasma TV which I enjoy very much, and it wasn't that expensive, all things considered. If I wanted a 3D TV the same size, I would have had to shell out about another 2,000 clams, plus about 100-200 per pair of shutter glasses.. and just so I could wait months and months and months for the next 3D worthy movie? I don't think so.

Maybe in about 10 years.

---
On another note.. I'm considering getting a Nvidia 3D setup for my PC, for gaming, as pretty much every game is 3D worthy, and it's not nearly as expensive, but still a heavy purchase; ~$600 or so for the glasses kit and a suitable 120hz LCD. I can easily think about 20 recent games off the top of my head that I would love to try in 3D, where I can only think of about 5 movies I would care to watch in 3D.

ignore this

I can just imagine the guy who forked out thousands for a glasses 3D TV learning about this.

"What? They made that! So I spent $3000 on impress my friends for nothing!? FUUUUUU-"

For.I.Am.Mad:
Forget 3D. I want Holodecks, where the holograms can become self-aware and evil.

^^ I like how this man thinks...

I'm interested in how they'll be able to adjust the filtering to accommodate different viewer locations. I mean glasses-free 3D cell phones have been out here in Japan for probably a year or so now, but you basically hold it in one spot.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here