Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hot Or Not — 3D TV

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the sounds-like-a-play-for-my-wallet dept.

Several sources have written to tell us that in terms of hype at this year's CES show, there is none bigger than that surrounding 3D TV. Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, LG, and Toshiba all have their own flavors of hardware and ESPN announced a 3D sports channel, but Microsoft seems to be bucking the trend with their apparent lack of 3D interest surrounding the Xbox product. "We're yet to see any major brand at CES pushing a 3D TV that doesn't require them. In most cases these aren't the basic Ray Ban style you might have worn to watch Avatar. In many cases they'll actually require power. For example, Sony's 3D TVs use a 'frame sequential' display method, which involves active-shutter glasses that turn on and off in sync with the images. Some TVs come with the glasses and have the transmitter built in, but again, in some cases you'll need to buy the transmitter and glasses separately."

2 of 419 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Active glasses? by fridaynightsmoke · · Score: 5, Informative

    What do active glasses give you that polarity glasses wouldn't? Why go that road except to eek out a bit more cash from the consumer?

    It's technically feasible to build a consumer television that alternates the left/right eye images, frame by frame, in sync with alternate blanking on glasses. All you need is a LCD with a good enough refresh rate and the right electronics.

    To use polarising glasses requires a large exotic projector, the space to set it up (think 'theatre' not 'living room') and a massively expensive reflective screen (AFAIK, anyway). Thats why.

    --
    This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
  2. Re:Competition by TheKidWho · · Score: 5, Informative

    Red and Green aren't the same, they are chemically different and the prices of the consumables can affect the cost of each color.

    You're delusional if you think TVs haven't changed radically in the past 30 years...

    30 years ago you were lucky to have a display capable of 640x480 which is .3MP... Today you can buy a 1080p 2M display, that's a nearly 7x increase in resolution.

    You are also highly delusional if you think price has remained consistent with inflation... I purchased my 30" 1920x1200 display for $350... In 1990 dollars that would be $215... You are insane if you think you could purchase a 2MP 30" Display for $215 in 1990.