Will someone please explain 3D!

[Neal]

3D, IMHO is a gimmick..

However, one issue I don't know if has been raised yet... 3D requires HDMi v1.4.. (as opposed to HDMi 1.3x, which is probably the most common standard)...

Not sure what the implications of this are yet

I've considered it to be a gimmick since it's recent resurrection but I had a go of Motorstorm 3D at the weekend while visiting my wife's friend on their new 3D TV and I was surprisingly impressed. It gave both depth to the track and was quite effective at throwing debris out of the screen. There was a little bit of double imaging on some objects although no worse than Avatar at the cinema, tbh I still think it's a gimmick although I am more open to it now but would only buy into it if it could be done without the glasses.

HDMI 1.4 will probably be an issue for a lot of people. As well as getting the new 3D TV they had to get a new AV amp as their existing one didn't support 1.4...they also got a new separate Sony 3D blu-ray player so save waiting for the PS3 update! Perhaps more money than sense but it was an awesome set up.

 

[SCUD77]

Right then there are 2 types of modern 3d, passive (used in cinemas & disney land) and Active (only used for home tv) active is better quality basically hd but doubles the frame rate from 60 to 120fps.
and is the type of new tv's on sale now for a minimum of £1500 +£100-ish for extra glasses and is what most current ps3 3d titles are in so will not work on a none 3d tv they also DO NOT work if you have to wear glasses and can cause fits due to the shutter lenses.
Passive on the other hand i suppose could work on any t.v due to the fact it is basically the same technique as the older red/cyan glasses but far better quality, and giving full color using polarized lenses instead, plus unlike active it doesn't half the frame rate so it would stay at 60 fps (active does 60fps to each eye independently so needs a monitor that can do 120fps passive does 60fps to both at the same time so any modern tv should work ) plus passive can be seen by most people including those wearing glasses,and the passive glasses only cost £5 a pair for good ones or free from the cinema .
cinema's use the same projector for 3d as they do 2d so in theory a normal tv should work aswel. But in truth there would be less cash in it for the big electronics giant's if they used passive because we wouldn't all need to buy new t.v's and £400 worth of extra glasses for the whole family to enjoy it. it's all down to money. hope this helps btw

 

[Stonemonkey]

Where on earth did you get that info from scud? It's mostly wrong.

 

[Shokz]

Yup, most of SCUD77's info is wrong.

 

[Ibonibo]

Yes the priciest 3d tv is a samsung 40 inch for 773 pounds.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B003JEVQRK/?tag=gtplanetuk-20
add 100 for glasses and it's a good deal.
Panasonic has one slightly better 40 inch for 1434 Pounds (1600&#8364
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B003J36FQI/?tag=gtplanetuk-20

For the holidays the prices will drop further as the models shown at ifa will arrive and next year again after the CES

I am thinking of getting one for months... but still haven't made convincing work on my wallet (as my tv is only 2 years old it's a bit hefty), and even the models without glasses will not be that good as people want them to be and those are now very expensive and in a few years they will still suffer sweet spot.
This is the technology that Sony now is devlopping because people complain about the glasses like 8 years old and will suffer the same problems like the 3ds

sry for german but it's quite understandable

What i don't understand is why is Sony staying behind. Their 3d TV's are hard to find and expensive compared to the other brands, still they want to push 3d??

 

[SCUD77]

Where on earth did you get that info from scud? It's mostly wrong.

Yup, most of SCUD77's info is wrong.

what parts are wrong ? there ARE 2 common types of 3d currently used ACTIVE which is currently only used in home t.v, and CAN cause fits (says on the box) and wont work for glasses wearers (go into a shop and see what response you get ) active doubles the frame rate to 120fps, 60fps per image 2 eyes = two images this is due to the fact that active does not play L&R images at the same time. although active will do H.D,
then there is PASSIVE used in cinemas & disney world which does not double the frame rate because it does play both L&R images at the same time the same as the old red cyan type of 3d, passive will not do H.D but will do full colour. active glasses DO cost £100 per pair you get 2 pairs with a new t.v. and finally cinemas DO use the same projector for there 3d movies as 2d. the only part that may be wrong is active 3d not working for people wearing glasses (I am going on what I was told by a salesman)
you are clearly both experts in 3d technology being so quick to say I am wrong so please correct anything i have posted which is wrong. also could you provide some link's showing the truth..thank you,
http://www.3d-tvbuyingguide.com/3dtv/active-vs-passive-glasses.html

 

[Jump_Ace]

When I was at PAX Prime this month, they had the 3D showing. I asked them to turn it off and they just needed to change the mode on the TV to turn the 3D off and it instantly changed (I can't drive with glasses on). One session I did try 3D and wasn't really impressed, it just makes the car's distance from you stand out more. But still fun in 2D!

Jerome

 

[sandman1347]

I was on the fence initially about 3D television. I thought that there was no way that they could actually replicate the effect that you get in a movie theater. About a month ago I went to my local Best Buy and saw one on display. I decided to give it a try and I was actually completely blown away by it! It was actually superior to the effect you get at the movies with those cheap glasses they hand out.

When I asked one of the employees in that section about it, he showed me the largest one they had with a racing game demo on it (not GT5 though). It looked absolutely amazing. If money were no object I would have bought one of them instantly and I'd be ready to play GT5 on it.

I think the experiece is clearly superior to using a 2D television. The depth perception and level of immersion is something you have to experience in order to really grasp it. It's hard to explain exactly why but I would highly recommend that anyone who has even the slightest interest in it go and check out a demonstration at your local electronics store. It completely won me over.

I don't know how I feel about spending long periods of time wearing those glasses inside of my own home and I certainly do not intend to be an early adopter and pay the huge prices that they are currently asking but in 2 or 3 years, I can definitely see myself getting one.

Right now each company that makes 3D TVs uses their own technology and the glasses you use for your Sony TV won't work for a Panasonic and so on. I get the feeling that within a couple of years, there will be standardization and perhaps they will find a way to generate a 3D picture without needing those clumsy looking glasses. I can't see 3D television really catching on in the way that HDTV has unless they can eliminate the glasses from the equation somehow.