3D TV Bombshell-Future Tech Revealed At 3D Summit

[PaulGo]

3D TV Bombshell-Future Tech Revealed At 3D Summit

...During the “The Future Drivers in the 3D Ecosystem” panel Greer announced that ReadD technology licensees will be able to offer the first “Full HD” passive 3D HDTVs in 2011, allowing the use of inexpensive, lightweight glasses (like the one you’re provided when visiting a 3D movie theater).

Full article at:
http://hdguru.com/3d-tv-bombshell-fu...d-summit/2419/

[dncpunke]

So now 1080p with passive glasses is achievable? Wonder what the price of the TV will be? I just invested in Mits DLP with adapter. And the same day this info is released. Well hopefully active glasses will be supported in the long term. Seems to me they should have waited to roll 3D out until they got to the point where passive glasses was a mainstream reality. You have people supporting 3D by buying all new hardware, only to be told a few months/weeks/and in my case day later that your stuff is now obsolete.

I understand tech changes and evolves, but this is ridiculous.

[PaulGo]

Originally Posted by dncpunke

So now 1080p with passive glasses is achievable? Wonder what the price of the TV will be? I just invested in Mits DLP with adapter. And the same day this info is released. Well hopefully active glasses will be supported in the long term. Seems to me they should have waited to roll 3D out until they got to the point where passive glasses was a mainstream reality. You have people supporting 3D by buying all new hardware, only to be told a few months/weeks/and in my case day later that your stuff is now obsolete.

I understand tech changes and evolves, but this is ridiculous.

The 3D TV technology will not change that fast. As with all technologies their is a cost involved and the TV manufactures have already invested in this technology so depending on the costs involved it may take a while for it to happen or it may never happen.

Fron the article:
"In other remarks Greer said he expects that active shutter 3D TVs will continue to be sold alongside the new 3D “passive glasses” sets for the next 4-5 years."

[dncpunke]

Originally Posted by PaulGo

The 3D TV technology will not change that fast. As with all technologies their is a cost involved and the TV manufactures have already invested in this technology so depending on the costs involved it may take a while for it to happen or it may never happen.

Fron the article:
"In other remarks Greer said he expects that active shutter 3D TVs will continue to be sold alongside the new 3D “passive glasses” sets for the next 4-5 years."

Perhaps I may have jumped the gun and proclaimed the sky is falling...but when I read 3D Bombshell the same day I just invested in it....I panicked for a minute! LOL

[Metric]

Expect the cost of glasses to shift to the tv that's all. Active glasses are cheap on bay anyway.

[Lovemy3D]

So, will there be anything different about the discs themselves? Or is it all in the TV? As long as the movies I buy now will play the same on the passive TVs, and the movies I buy later, will still play on the active shutter TVs, this is not a big deal. I can just upgrade to a passive TV down the road, when I'm ready for a new TV.

But if the discs are different so that I have to replace everything I have, or cannot buy new movies for the TV I own now, that would suck big time.

[PaulGo]

The Blu-ray disc and the Blu-ray player should not change because of this - it is all within the TV.

[Lovemy3D]

Originally Posted by PaulGo

The Blu-ray disc and the Blu-ray player should not change because of this - it is all within the TV.

Ok, thank you. I'm not worried then.

[Jimmy Smith]

I expect active shutter to dominate home 3D for the next few years. Passives at launch will likely be far more expensive unless you want 15 or more people to watch it at once. Especially when you consider active shutter glasses are sure to price drop. Over time as the price narrows I expect passives to overcome active shutter. In further time autostereo will overtake passive but that is years and years off

Luckily 3D Blu-Ray is display agnositc and current 3D Blu-Rays can be displayed in both passive and active shutter displays.

[PaulGo]

Another article on this:

http://3dradar.techradar.com/3d-tech...011-22-09-2010

[Jimmy Smith]

Passive displays will be of biggest benefit to parents of children. I can't imagine any parent with a reasonable income watching a current active shutter 3D movie with a child under the age of 8. Kids are destructive and prone to random tempter tantrums and active shutter glasses are easily broken if dropped or mishandled. With glasses costing over $100 it seems like an unnessesary risk for most parents. With cheap polarized glasses there will be less fear in allowing children to watch 3D movies.

[gekke henkie]

The LG CF3 projector uses passive glasses tech (on the market since Feb'10), but costs around $12K.

[Hale-Bopp]

Awesome, I guess that means when/if I can afford a 3DTV, I'll be getting one with passive technology (circular polarization) which so far has proven to be my favorite method for viewing 3D material.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by dncpunke

So now 1080p with passive glasses is achievable? Wonder what the price of the TV will be? I just invested in Mits DLP with adapter. And the same day this info is released. Well hopefully active glasses will be supported in the long term. Seems to me they should have waited to roll 3D out until they got to the point where passive glasses was a mainstream reality. You have people supporting 3D by buying all new hardware, only to be told a few months/weeks/and in my case day later that your stuff is now obsolete.

I understand tech changes and evolves, but this is ridiculous.

Passive darkens the image, personally I think active shutter is better.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

Passive darkens the image, personally I think active shutter is better.

Active Shutter darkens the image as well. Its important that 3D discs and a televisions 3D mode brighten the image to compensate.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Active Shutter darkens the image as well. Its important that 3D discs and a televisions 3D mode brighten the image to compensate.

yup, both get rid of at least 50% of the light output since eye is only receiving 1/2 the image (light). Thought there is probably more then that which is lost.

[Jimmy Smith]

Pretty much the only advantage Active Shutter has over Circular Polarization is price. Unless you want half your neighborhood watching your television at once active shutter is a far cheaper solution to quality 3D.

Other then that polarization seems like once its afforadable is a far better option. No worrying about your television syncing with the glasses, no worries about your kids dropping a $100 plus peice of equitment off there heads, no possible flickering issues, no charging. I suspect polarization will be the dominant form of home video 3D by 2015. Paralax barrier (aka glasses free) will dominate by the year 2025 if mankind is still alive.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Pretty much the only advantage Active Shutter has over Circular Polarization is price. Unless you want half your neighborhood watching your television at once active shutter is a far cheaper solution to quality 3D.

but that is a big advantage, the only question is can there be a <<1000$ difference. At 4500$ MSRP for JVC's cheapest 3D projector, compare it to the LG at 12000$ (MSRP 15000$) that is 40 pairs of glasses+ and a big difference in price. Why is there such a big difference? the JVC has one optical path (or 3 , one for each colour) while the LG has two (or 6 depending how we count) in essence it is two complete projectors in one with the added difficulty of fitting it in one box. That is why it is more then twice the cost.

The same for these TVs, if you read the article it says

The RealD system uses patented ZScreen technology, an electro-optical system built into the front of a flat panel that very rapidly changes the light from clockwise circular polarization to counterclockwise and back again.

what does that mean? to you and me, they add an extra LCD in front of the LCD TV, that new LCD flips (or not) the polarized light that is coming out from the normal LCD. The most expensive part of the TV is, practically speaking, doubled. Since it is not doing much I am guessing they might be able to use a cheaper LCD then the main one, but still it should add a lot to the cost. So the idea that there won't be a big difference in display cost between passive and active is a bit odd to me unless it is a technology that is very different from this. If it was for a projector, it might not be that bad (since you need a smaller LCD, but for a TV, it is bound to make a big difference in cost.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

but that is a big advantage, the only question is can there be a <<1000$ difference. At 4500$ MSRP for JVC's cheapest 3D projector, compare it to the LG at 12000$ (MSRP 15000$) that is 40 pairs of glasses+ and a big difference in price. Why is there such a big difference? the JVC has one optical path (or 3 , one for each colour) while the LG has two (or 6 depending how we count) in essence it is two complete projectors in one with the added difficulty of fitting it in one box. That is why it is more then twice the cost.

The same for these TVs, if you read the article it says


what does that mean? to you and me, they add an extra LCD in front of the LCD TV, that new LCD flips (or not) the polarized light that is coming out from the normal LCD. The most expensive part of the TV is, practically speaking, doubled. Since it is not doing much I am guessing they might be able to use a cheaper LCD then the main one, but still it should add a lot to the cost. So the idea that there won't be a big difference in display cost between passive and active is a bit odd to me unless it is a technology that is very different from this. If it was for a projector, it might not be that bad (since you need a smaller LCD, but for a TV, it is bound to make a big difference in cost.

Agreed it is a big advantage. Polarizations advantages are just not worth the thousands of extra bucks its sure to cost. However when the day comes that polarization is affordable it seems like a better solution then active shutter.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Agreed it is a big advantage. Polarizations advantages are just not worth the thousands of extra bucks its sure to cost. However when the day comes that polarization is affordable it seems like a better solution then active shutter.

I agree, all else equal (or close enough) polarization is the way to go, you can see my post in PM's thread that I was disappointed when I heard the Sony projector would use shutter glasses.

It is just that IMHO The question is not when, but if the day comes, the simple fact that when the guy from realD is talking 5 years (since let's face, we all agree that no one would want 200$ glasses that need to be charged if something simpler exists and price wise it is close enough) does not inspire confidence in me.