Panasonic 3D TV Does Not Disappoint

Engadget recently had a chance to try out Panasonic's 3D demo rig, and, aside from the goofy glasses, report some impressive results. "Active shutter 3D technology once again did not fail to impress, though large format action content like the Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony and action sports footage was far more impressive than the movie trailer. The benefit of a picture where everything, regardless of distance from the camera, is in focus is one of the biggest benefits 3D has going for it and nothing makes that more apparent than video from a large stadium. Aside from a few glitches from a pair of the glasses being low on battery and flickering annoyingly throughout, the framerate was smooth and the picture sharp, a marked difference from the jittery motion we witnessed during JVC's 3D demo earlier in the day."

Comments

Does not disappoint?

[mcgrew]

Aside from a few glitches from a pair of the glasses being low on battery and flickering annoyingly throughout

Personally, I don't think the "shuttered glasses" tech will last long. I've seen 3D movies with the polarized glasses tech, and it's amazing. It might be hard to pull off with a TV, but I don't see why you couldn't have an LCD screen with every other pixel polarized in the opposite direction.

The benefit of a picture where everything, regardless of distance from the camera, is in focus is one of the biggest benefits 3D has going for it

Incorrect; you can as easily have a 2D photo where the depth of field is infinite. Fiolm makers and photographers use use depth of field to their artistic advantage. The smaller the aperture, the greater the depth of field. The more light, the smaller an aperture you can use.

BTW, I RTFA and there's not really any more than in the summary.

Re:Does not disappoint?

[earlymon]

I don't see why you couldn't have an LCD screen with every other pixel polarized in the opposite direction.

Odd idea. An LCD element - subpixel - is light-permissive, meaning a polarizing action takes place to lower the (normally) constant backlight through the aperature.

How would you propose changing a chemical polarizer and what manufacturing process would you suggest to built such a beast? (No ad hominem intended or implied - just throwing a rock at the idea in case you know something I don't.)

Sweet!

[longfalcon]

TV with added splitting headache!

Panasonic: John Q Public's Electronics Company

[reporter]

During the last 30 years, the brands possessing the most value (for the money) for the typical customer has changed dramatically. In 1979, heaven for the consumer was Sony audio and visual appliances and Honda cars. Now, heaven for the consumer is Panasonic audio and visual appliances and Toyota cars.

30 years from now, what will be heaven for the consumer?

Everything in focus is usually considered a flaw

[PingXao]

Depth of field is important to film makers. They don't want everything to be in focus. It looks too much like video instead of film. For live sporting events, that may be fine, but the fact that the movie trailer looked like shit is no surprise at all.

Re:Glasses breaks the deal for me

[Facegarden]

Having to wear special glasses, especially ones that need batteries or cords is just a deal breaker for me.

It's a novelty item and maybe an impressive one at that. But if you're going to sit down and watch a few tv shows or a movie or two, do you really want to have to find your 3D glasses and some batteries first?

I'm thinking not having to deal with the hassle will trump the initial "fun" factor of having "3D" television.

I dunno, I wear sunglasses when driving, safety glasses at work, goggles when swimming, and plenty of people wear glasses when reading, if not all the time. I don't see how wearing glasses when watching TV is really any less convenient than all the other things I wear them for, if it means I get a 3D TV sooner, rather than later.

Plus, I already wear a silly headset when playing Xbox. You could pretty much put my head in a fishbowl if that made anything cooler, I'm not trying to impress anyone in my living room.
-Taylor

Re:Lets get these out of the way

[TheGreenNuke]

You mean people will complain about stupid and irrelevant shit, regardless of what is said (i.e. my previous post).

Re:Everything in focus is usually considered a fla

[bickle]

There's no law that it *HAS* to be in focus. A filmmaker could specifically keep one section in focus and other layers of depth out of focus. Furthermore, it's not usually considered a flaw. It's considered a choice.

Re:Glasses breaks the deal for me

[tgzuke]

I dunno, I wear sunglasses when driving, safety glasses at work, goggles when swimming, and plenty of people wear glasses when reading, if not all the time. I don't see how wearing glasses when watching TV is really any less convenient than all the other things I wear them for, if it means I get a 3D TV sooner, rather than later.

Plus, I already wear a silly headset when playing Xbox. You could pretty much put my head in a fishbowl if that made anything cooler, I'm not trying to impress anyone in my living room. -Taylor

Yeah, but I'm not usually trying to multitask while wearing swimming goggles, and eyeglasses don't get in the way of doing other things. Like most people, if I'm watching TV, I'm also doing other activities: cooking, browsing the Internet on my laptop, etc. So long as these 3D glasses interfere with my normal vision, they won't be a part of my entertainment system.