3D TV (3 Dimensional Television) Page 3

  • Page

    of 10 First / Last

  • Jmek 21 Aug 2010 10:30:23 1,352 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Well just spoken to a really nice guy called Paul from Robert Whyte's. He checked to see if had been refunded and said he would call me back within ten minutes. He called me back in five minutes and apparently my refund had not been processed, he has however done it for me so I should have it back in my account by Wednesday at the latest. With any luck I might actually be able to buy the TV by next weekend.
  • Red-Moose 21 Aug 2010 15:25:32 5,346 posts
    Seen 1 month ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    i am a big fan of samsung screens. for my next tv it will probably be another samsung, and good to see the 750 getting good reports. any experience of the skype functionality in it?
  • Jmek 26 Aug 2010 08:14:23 1,352 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    My TV should be delivered today. my 3D glasses have just turned up and are on charge. Can't wait to get home from work!
  • mrpon 26 Aug 2010 08:32:21 29,234 posts
    Seen 24 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Had a go on a thin Samsumg in Comet. Put the glasses on, switched them on and the footage (Monsters vs Aliens) seemed blurry?

    Bloody nice TV though.

    Give yourself 5 or gig, you're worth it.

  • woodnotes 26 Aug 2010 08:41:14 4,935 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    mrpon wrote:
    Had a go on a thin Samsumg in Comet. Put the glasses on, switched them on and the footage (Monsters vs Aliens) seemed blurry?

    Bloody nice TV though.
    I wouldn't have gone for an LED due to backlight uniformity issues and price, but there's no denying that they look absolutely beautiful.
  • speedofthepuma 26 Aug 2010 08:45:45 13,309 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I went and had a look at the Sony set at Lakeside the other day and the guy was hinting at hundreds of pounds off (mind you about 2200 with x2 sets of glasses that cost 100 more for more sets).

    It worked, but I wonder how much normal TV will take adavantage of the effect. What was amazing was my wife, normally unimpressed by tech, was blown away and wanted to buy one immediately: "I'm serious, of course I want one, stuff comes out of the screen at you!"

    I lurk. If I've spoken to you, I'm either impassioned, or drunk.

  • kalel 26 Aug 2010 08:51:05 88,511 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    If the tech exists for 3D to work without glasses, that is obviously the future, in which case buying a set that requires glasses is imo a mistake.

    Early adopters beware.
  • Buztafen 26 Aug 2010 08:54:27 16,404 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Well i went to Roy Jowetts in Colne where my uncle is manager of the Home Cinema section (shameless promotion, good shop, helpful staff) and he setup the new Panasonic 50' VT20 using a promotional 3D Bluray. Wearing the active shutter style glasses me and the gf found the effect was pretty remarkable. They had the standard balls being hit in slow motion stuff straight towards you and subtitles coming out of the screen etc but then there were trailers for cartoons and a crazy section where anime pictures came to life. The depth of field and detail were insane, really impressive stuff. However the price at around 2500 plus the cost of the glasses was also insane.

    If you live in the area pop in and take a look.
  • mrpon 26 Aug 2010 09:25:51 29,234 posts
    Seen 24 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Woody, how much was your LE40C750 and where from? Sounds superb.

    Give yourself 5 or gig, you're worth it.

  • shamblemonkee 26 Aug 2010 09:31:42 14,496 posts
    Seen 21 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    If the tech exists for 3D to work without glasses, that is obviously the future, in which case buying a set that requires glasses is imo a mistake.

    Early adopters beware.

    This is what i think, especially when there's virtually zero product to watch on your shiny new 3D screen afaik.
  • woodnotes 26 Aug 2010 09:39:36 4,935 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    But the C750 is only 100 more than its 2D-equivalent C650. Seems like a no-brainer for only a little bit more. Not to mention the C750 also has other additional features like PVR functionality etc.

    Decent non-glasses 3D TVs are a good few years away at least. The Toshiba one that's coming out this year isn't HD, is only 20" and has an extremely limited viewing angle for 3D.

    Obviously if you like to keep your TV for 15 years then it's worth waiting, but if you're like me and buy a new TV every five years, then I don't see an issue.

    From my point of view, the C750 was by far the best 2D TV I tried against the Sony EX503 and Panasonic G20 (see my post on the previous page) . 3D was just a bonus, and the TV actually cost the same as the 2D G20.
  • kalel 26 Aug 2010 09:43:36 88,511 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    My point is that (as I understand it) the TVs that work without glasses require a different type of source for the 3D to work, so essentially we're talking about a format war, and it's one that I can't see the one that requires glasses is going to win, even if that format came first. Betamax came first. DCC came first. HD-DVD came first etc.

    Dunno, up to you, but buying 3D tellies and loads of sets of glasses seems like a waste of money to me. It's not like there's much source material to make the most of your 3D right now anyway, so what's the rush?
  • buggrit 26 Aug 2010 09:45:40 5,179 posts
    Seen 18 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    ^ What kalel said, basically.
  • dominalien 26 Aug 2010 09:46:23 7,023 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    My point is that (as I understand it) the TVs that work without glasses require a different type of source for the 3D to work

    Hm, do you have a source for that? Because at first glance the format in which the image is being fed to the TV should have nothing to do with the tech the TV uses to then display it.

    PSN: DonOsito

  • kalel 26 Aug 2010 09:48:16 88,511 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Not sure to be honest, might be wrong about that. Silentbob needed.
  • dominalien 26 Aug 2010 09:56:59 7,023 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Hm, according to Wikipedia there is at least a chance of a single standard. It seems HDMI 1.4 should guarantee compatibility.

    PSN: DonOsito

  • Jmek 28 Aug 2010 10:53:56 1,352 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Well the Samsung 46C750 is amazing. As a normal TV it's jaw dropping and the 3D is the icing on the cake. So far the only true 3D I've tried is Wipeout and Avatar the game. Both look amazing especially Avatar. The 2d - 3d converter works surprisingly well adding a fair bit of depth to games and movies. Can't wait to get my hands on Killzone 3.
  • Gambit1977 28 Aug 2010 11:39:41 10,300 posts
    Seen 57 seconds ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I dropped my new panny 42" G15B last night, huge big crack in the bottom of the unit, screen's ok, but already received my claim form ;) 3D here I come!
  • Jmek 28 Aug 2010 11:49:57 1,352 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Gambit1977 wrote:
    I dropped my new panny 42" G15B last night, huge big crack in the bottom of the unit, screen's ok, but already received my claim form ;) 3D here I come!

    Dang! Sorry to hear that man. Hope your claim goes OK.
  • Gambit1977 28 Aug 2010 12:46:02 10,300 posts
    Seen 57 seconds ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Jmek wrote:
    Gambit1977 wrote:
    I dropped my new panny 42" G15B last night, huge big crack in the bottom of the unit, screen's ok, but already received my claim form ;) 3D here I come!

    Dang! Sorry to hear that man. Hope your claim goes OK.

    It was my own fault, but thanks :)
    I was replacing me LEDs behind it and thought I could rest it against me, not a good idea haha!
  • silentbob 28 Aug 2010 15:19:01 29,023 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    My point is that (as I understand it) the TVs that work without glasses require a different type of source for the 3D to work...
    Don't think so.

    Multi parallax stereoscopy is the best we can look forward to this year and that only gives the viewer a maximum 30 degree viewing angle. Which is shit. There isn't any current indications that that viewing angle will improve later either.

    Either way, buying into 3D software or hardware sources won't limit your options for screens in the future.

    Your point about early adoption is relevant of course, just not quite as dramatic.

    VR News: www.roadtovr.com -- Follow us on Twitter.

  • FairgroundTown 28 Aug 2010 15:36:11 2,522 posts
    Seen 11 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Mrs FT tried a 3D driving game on a PS3 at work, and was pretty wowed, but it was on a HUGE screen. We tried the normal, living-room sized TVs in the Sony Center in Tokyo, and I was impressed by the quality, but it was very disconcerting the way stuff 'fell off' the edge of the picture - I think because there isn't the same defined 'frame' as on a 2D TV. I guess you get used to this, but it was really odd and kept pulling my eye away from the actual picture, because my brain sensed the oddness. Anyway, we came away figuring that it probably needs a HUGE screen to work, and that 42 inches just isn't enough.
  • Scurrminator 8 Sep 2010 10:26:38 8,443 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I've heard Plasma is the way to go for 3DTVs; with that in mind is this any good?
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B003JFWC4K/ref=pe_26011_21569301_pe_vfe_t3

    You dare to strike Scurrcules!?

  • bzzct 8 Sep 2010 11:25:00 1,725 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    What's up with the 3D TVs in pubs only requiring the cinema-style cheapy glasses, and home TVs requiring these 100-a-pop jobbies?
  • woodnotes 8 Sep 2010 11:40:03 4,935 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    bzzct wrote:
    What's up with the 3D TVs in pubs only requiring the cinema-style cheapy glasses, and home TVs requiring these 100-a-pop jobbies?
    Passive vs Active.
  • mrpon 8 Sep 2010 12:21:11 29,234 posts
    Seen 24 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    bzzct wrote:
    What's up with the 3D TVs in pubs only requiring the cinema-style cheapy glasses, and home TVs requiring these 100-a-pop jobbies?
    Think about it ;)

    Give yourself 5 or gig, you're worth it.

  • bzzct 8 Sep 2010 12:34:58 1,725 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Erm, I'm not sure what either of you mean by those answers :-P, so I'll try to rephrase the question:

    Seeing as pubs have 3D TVs that do not require expensive glasses, why do the ones available for home use require expensive glasses?
  • mrpon 8 Sep 2010 12:37:17 29,234 posts
    Seen 24 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Heh, I was clearly talking from a stealing point of view. I'll let woody fill you in on the tech side.

    Give yourself 5 or gig, you're worth it.

  • bzzct 8 Sep 2010 12:57:32 1,725 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Well I was thinking more the other way round. Not "why don't pubs use expensive glasses", but "why don't home TVs use cheap ones"?

    The advantages to the cheap glasses are obvious (they're cheap...), I'm asking why you can't get TVs for the home that use the cheap glasses.
  • woodnotes 8 Sep 2010 12:59:57 4,935 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    bzzct wrote:
    Well I was thinking more the other way round. Not "why don't pubs use expensive glasses", but "why don't home TVs use cheap ones"?

    The advantages to the cheap glasses are obvious (they're cheap...), I'm asking why you can't get TVs for the home that use the cheap glasses.
    Because active technology has proven to be the superior home solution.
  • Page

    of 10 First / Last

Log in or register to reply