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

[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.