3D is the next big thing for home entertainment. Or at least that’s what 3D TV manufacturers and countless blogs want you to believe. The truth is, the new technology (based on old technology) is struggling to catch on. Chalk it up to the persistent economic crisis, consumer ambivalence and those damn clunky glasses. Oh, and the high cost of entry – let’s not forget about that.
Vizio, LG and Toshiba are three companies lining up a few less sticker shock-inducing alternatives. But will consumers bite?
“Passive 3D” is essentially the cheaper solution for home 3D TVs, using movie theater-style glasses as opposed to the pricier active shutter home models. ConsumerReports.org’s Electronic Blog went hands-on with one such passive set this week: the VT3D650SV – Vizio’s new 65-inch behemoth. Now, “cheaper” here is likely nowhere near what most would expect or hope for; Vizio’s first foray into passive 3D runs $3,700.
When tested against a standard plasma 3D TV – Panasonic’s $4,300 TC-P65VT25 – the site reports mixed results.
While the technology diminished ‘ghosting’ to the point of being negligible, ConsumerReports bemoaned the one hurdle passive 3D will not be able to clear: a marked difference in how it conveys 3D images.
“Passive TVs use a different 3D technology than the current active 3D sets already on the market,” explains the site. “Unlike those sets, which use active glasses with shutters that open and close very rapidly to provide each eye its own view, passive TVs use a polarizing film on the TV screen itself, which divides the picture into alternating lines, much like the interlaced images we used to get on older tube TVs.”
What does that mean for casual viewers? More jagged edges, a narrow viewing range and lower resolution. Ultimately, the site concludes, the issues may either be “subtle or bothersome” depending on the person watching and the source material.
Do you own a 3D TV? Plan on buying one soon? Share your thoughts on the technology in the comments.
12 Comments
How much it gets used will be anyones guess. I find that 2d movies converted to 3d look pretty lackluster when compared to something like Avatar that's filmed in actual 3d. Which makes me thing there wouldn't be too many movies to benefit.
I was pretty quick to jump on the HD bandwagon, but i'm less excited about 3d @ home. How good can it look on a 40 or 50 inch tv anyways?
|
Originally Posted by Zod
I think 3d will remain a gimmick. Eventually the tech will get so cheap they'll build it into every tv. Sort of like how can't find SD tv's anymore.
How much it gets used will be anyones guess. I find that 2d movies converted to 3d look pretty lackluster when compared to something like Avatar that's filmed in actual 3d. Which makes me thing there wouldn't be too many movies to benefit. I was pretty quick to jump on the HD bandwagon, but i'm less excited about 3d @ home. How good can it look on a 40 or 50 inch tv anyways? |
But seriously .... this 3D thing has got to stop ... passive 3D is just simply rediculous ... it was great in the 60's, when movie expectations were quite low ... but now .... rotflmao ....
And at $3700US .... hahahahaa!
3D will never be mainstream in the home, it's too expensive and there's almost no content to watch.
The factor is cost. If the active glasses drop to a "cheap" or affordable price and the TV's too then bring it on!
For certain movies, the 3D experience is fantastic and I would love to have a huge 3D TV in my home. I would also love to try it for video games.
|
Originally Posted by CDan
There's a lot of undisclosed issues with the "passive 3D" technology, just like there was with active shutter glasses. Suffice it to say that the image quality is mediocre and fraught with viewing angle and position issues. I see no need for it. You're trading image quality and viewing angles for the convenience of universal glasses. You can't even tip your head with these things.
3D will never be mainstream in the home, it's too expensive and there's almost no content to watch. |
Passive 3D is just .... stupid ...
The ACTIVE 3D with glasses is impressive, in some implementations, but the active glasses needing recharge, weighing too much, costing $100+ a pair, interference from other IR sources (according to samsung, whose IR signalling implementation is just plain bad) & 3D isn't going anywhere with the prices they're charging, nor the extreme lack of 3D content anywhere.
Releasing "Passive" 3D, which sucks in comparison to active 3D, at price points not significantly cheaper - bah. Waste of time.
I'm sure there will be a few nostalgic buyers tryng to relive the 60/70's 3D experience.
I just can't see "Passive" 3D going anywhere.
But seriously there's is software like MAGIX Movie Edit Pro 17 Plus that will create 3D movies to the old fashion Red/Blue (plus polarized) movies so you watch at home with a regular tv. check it out @:
http://www.magix.com/us/movie-edit-pro/plus/3d-info-box/
scroll down a bit and look for "How can I watch my finished movie?" and click on "More info"
As long as the industry does not come up with an non vomit concept and no glasses they will continue to have a hard time selling sea sickness for a premium.
As for getting sea sick, I have not had that problem and I do get sea sick in a boat. I got a really good deal on the TV and the 3D BluRay player (Samsung also).
What the ads for Best Buys, that is where I got mine in a packaged deal.
As with anything, it will take time.
About this category
LCD TV
- Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) screens are often used for computer screens, but also make up the flat-screen television market together with Plasma TVs. The fact that a television uses Plasma or LCD technique doesn’t say much about the image quality of the television, neither does it say something about resolution or viewing angle. LCD TVs often come in a smaller size than their Plasma counterparts, but tend to have slightly lower power consumption.More about this
Most popular headlines
Diablo 3 game fans hit with always-online DRM grief (4)
- Fri 18 May 20:04 by Seán
- Software
it appears that Blizzard underestimated the server capacity required to handle all the gamers, thus resulting in Battle.net servers being overloaded and taken offline at launch. As Diablo III requires the user to be logged in with an uninterrupted internet connection to play, most players were greeted with an "Error 37" on the day of launch, unable to play the game.
CD Projekt says the truth is, DRM doesn't work (2)
- Mon 21 May 22:48 by Seán
- Piracy
In an interview between Forbes and CD Projekt CEO Marcin Iwinski, Iwinski said the truth is that DRM simply does not work. He said the main problem is that the copy protection is cracked within hours of the release of every game, not to mention the money and development wasted to implement it. Those with pirated versions also have a clean and more functional game!
FBI to start special service to spy on online communication (1)
- Thu 24 May 10:11 by DoMiN8ToR
- Computers
Cnet claims that the FBI, the intellige
Why not? PNY announces USB drive with whistle (10)
- Wed 23 May 11:48 by DoMiN8ToR
- Uncategorized
It could be possible that there is a scenario where you would have loved to be able to whistle on your USB stick, but we really wonder when. To make
