Your next television.... 3D?

[bicker]

US consumers purchase $55 million worth of 3D TVs and Blu-ray players, despite the glasses

... after just three months on the market.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/25/us-consumers-purchase-55-million-worth-of-3d-tvs-and-blu-ray-pl/

We actually are in that group; we set out to buy a new television, this summer, and had no intention of buying one that was 3D-compatible, but the best televisions out there this summer all are 3D-compatible, so it is one of those "might as well" situations.

So are you looking forward to this new technology? What past movies do you wish were made in 3D so you could enjoy them at home in 3D? What do you hope will be offered taking advantage of this new technology?

 

[Dax]

LOL, my next TV will be a flat screen with HD...I am still using my good ol giant 32" with the tube in it...Just cant justify getting rid of a perfectly good TV.

I am a LOOONG way out from a 3d TV

 

[Lucky4me]

3D gives me a headache. I'll stick to high def. until they get to a point where you won't need the glasses. Then we'll check it out.

 

[bicker]

3D gives me a headache. I'll stick to high def. until they get to a point where you won't need the glasses. Then we'll check it out.

It's coming...

Glasses-free 3D LCD TVs likely by 2015

From the article:

"Consumers will likely see 3D LCD TVs that don't require people to wear polarized glasses out on global markets by 2015, according to a Taiwanese research group that showed off an early version of such a device this week.

Taiwan's Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) displayed a 42-inch glasses-free 3D LCD TV this week, and the company can currently make them with screens as large as 65 inches, according to Stephen Jeng, director of ITRI's 3D System & Application Division." ...​

Having said that, have you tried the active technology glasses yet (which is what 3D televisions use)? They are much less headache-inducing than the old polarization (passive) technology glasses, that they use in theaters.

 

[dakcp2001]

Me & the DF saw a demo of this at the Sony outlet, and I was not that impressed. It was not that cool. I think Ill give them a few years to work out the kinks and have the prices come down. DF is a technology person, and he was not impressed either.

 

[Shutterbug]

Well I was reading that Sony will be releasing some 3D games for the Playstation 3 as well which might include the GT5 racing/driving game.
That would be so awesome!

I wonder though if they will make the 3D feature available in 32" models though.

I have been waiting and waiting to get a tv but anything over 32" is kinda overkill for my place.

 

[daydream32]

I have not been anywhere with one yet. How is the picture quality and does it seem to work as good at the movie theaters? I would love one, but not quite in my price range at the moment .

I will probably pick up the Nintendo 3DS if it is at a reasonable price. 3DS does not use glasses and there are rumors of full length 3d movies for it. They were playing the How to Train your Dragon trailer in 3D at the E3 conference and said it looked great. Definitely not as big as a TV, but it might hold me over until I can get one in a few years.

 

[bicker]

I have not been anywhere with one yet. How is the picture quality and does it seem to work as good at the movie theaters?

AFAIC, active technology 3D (shutter glasses) that they use in 3D HDTVs is about 10 times better than the passive technology 3D (polarized glasses) that they use in movie theaters.

 

[ilovejack02]

I am not a fan of 3d, my 7 yr old won't watch any movies in 3d. I have a feeling it makes him feel sick. Our tv is only 4 yrs old and of course still looks amazing though not as up to date as it could be. It will be a LONG time before we consider a 3d tv.

 

[bicker]

There is definitely some age-dependency with regard to 3D. I'm not sure I've seen an explanation of it yet, but younger children do seem to have a much harder time "seeing" the 3D using any of the available technologies (red/blue; passive polarization; or active shutter). If I remember correctly, by age 7 that begins to reverse itself - by age 12 kids tend to be more receptive to 3D than adults.

 

[ilovejack02]

There is definitely some age-dependency with regard to 3D. I'm not sure I've seen an explanation of it yet, but younger children do seem to have a much harder time "seeing" the 3D using any of the available technologies (red/blue; passive polarization; or active shutter). If I remember correctly, by age 7 that begins to reverse itself - by age 12 kids tend to be more receptive to 3D than adults.

Makes sense to me , we shall see. He was scared when he was about five at one of the movies , I think it was Journey to Center of Earth when something "jumped " out at him. He has tried it a few times since, but just doesn't seem to be interested. He may not be seeing it real well and the glasses are annoying too : )

Glasses free in 2015, we may be ready to check it out by then LOL.

 

[Carl]

I don't know if this technology will work for me or not. My eyes do not fuse. To make up for that, my brain does something to compensate and I do see 3D to an extent. The regular polarized 3D works somewhat - although no perfectly - for me.

 

[bicker]

My problem with the polarized technology is that you need to keep your head straight!

 

[Rora]

DH and I really want to purchase a 3D TV. We'll wait awhile until they come down in price, all the bugs are worked out, etc.

 

[Toad_Passenger]

Right now, I don't have any plans for 3D. There is really no compelling reason for me to get it (and I'm normally an early adopter of things!). Moving to HD made sense to me since I was on Dish Network during a period of time when compression made SD nearly unwatchable. 3D, however, doesn't really offer anything to me, IMO, other than some interesting effects.

 

[bicker]

It is going to be fall before our service provider begins offering us any 3D channels; for now it really is just for watching discs. I'm not sure how quickly, nor in the end how many, 3D channels will be made available, nor how much of and how soon their content will be produced and therefore presented in 3D. Of course, the same thing happened with HD... and probably with color, before that...

 

[HM]

Nope. Not really interested.
Just bought a new TV last week, 46" Samsung LED HDTV. This was replacing our 32" Samsung HDTV we got five years ago (which was moved to another room to replace a big fat 20" TV that was more than 10 years old).

 

[TheZue]

I'm not even remotely interested. I don't want to wear the stupid glasses, I'm rarely just sitting watching TV. Not only that I'm really really prone to getting sick from moving images like video games; I wouldn't risk it buying a TV because it generally doesn't happen for a while and I wouldn't be able to tell in the store. The movies I've been okay this time; but the new technology without the glasses I'd have to go to somebody elses house and watch theirs for a while lol.

I'm much more interested in the TV that George Takkei is selling; but he's awesome and mocking my current TV so that might have a lot to do with it.

 

[cteddiesgirl]

Nope. Just finally got HD tv's in the house.

Plus, I'd rather not watch a tv where there are health risks involved.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/16/3d-tv-health-risks-7-peop_n_540227.html

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/3d-tv-can-damage-your-health-20100603-x2cu.html
Samsung has also warned of the risk of stroke while watching the televisions

Also:
http://www.ezdigitaltv.com/Problems_with_3D.html
Unfortunatly, the 3D glasses can only be used with the brand of 3D television you buy so you won't be able to take your glasses over to a friend's house to enjoy a movie viewed on a different TV set.


Nope. Not ready for a 3D tv until they get these types of things worked out.

 

[bicker]

I think a lot of those warnings are like the warning on McDonald's coffee cups... "Warning: This beverage is hot!"