Global shipments of 3D TVs will top 50 million units in 2015, market watcher ABI Research said today. We say it'll be a darn sight more than that - probably in the order of 200 million. No, we haven't been mysteriously converted to the 3D cause - quite the reverse. Reg Hardware is sceptical about 3D TV because we sense no real …
Little difference between 2d & 3d
It's just a case of syncing a pair of shutter glasses to the screen (and a panel fast enough to do it) this was successfully done in the 80's on the master system. A lot of tellys have built in usb for media etc, a firmware upgrade could allow a usb dongle to transmit sync pulses to the glasses for an after market upgrade. Doubt it will happen though.
Too early. But percentages don't relay on the reason someone's buying a new TV, just on the attraction of 3D to those who are buying. Which will depend on price and anticipated use of the 3D functionality.
This pundit predicts that everyone will be bored of the 3D fad by then, and film-makers can get back to just making decent films instead.
Include 3D functionality in TVs by all means
but give me the option to switch off the feature. I can't think of a time in the last few years where I've sat and watched TV and only watched TV. There's too much do to. I can't believe that 3D TV mixed with using a laptop at the same time will be a pleasant experience.
And 3D TVs and 3D laptops? How will they sync the glasses unless the tech is passive.
I won't be buying a TV in 2015...
Unless they start making anything worth the effort to watch, the chances are I won't both with a telly in 5 years time. How bad would the soaps/talentless talent shows/low budget chat shows be in 3D?
It's enough to drive you to drink.
required, and must contain letters and/or digits.
"Over the last five years or so, it's been nigh-on impossible to buy a new CRT TV if your old one packed in, or you fancied a larger display. That meant you had to buy an LCD or plasma, no matter whether you wanted one or not. Five years or less from now, you'll have as little choice about 3D"
Which is why I stick with the old telly which now only has one working scart socket...
Still haven't found a (reasonably priced) flat screen I like the picture on :(
I don't care how many D it is
all I want is something good to watch.
While we can all marvel at the technology and lack of flicker or glare or grain or blur, none of that turn a badly written programme into something worth watching. It doesn't make a one-dimensional plot into a multi-layered, subtle drama and it won't impart fluency into a wooden actor.
I'd be willing to give up all the technology of the past 40 years (right back tot he early days of colour, on honkin' great boxy tellies) for engaging programmes that entertained and hold my attention. While today and tomorrows tech might be wonders of oriental design and production I find that the amount of stuff I actually want to watch is steadily decreasing - as the number of channels, number of hours, number of "+1"s, cable, satellite, HD and all the other gubbins increases.
In my mini-hotel we have no TV's not even a B&W
We have 31 rooms for rent and no one has complained about the lack of a TV - but we do provide InterNet connected computers in each room. If guests want to see a movie we have a large collection of DVD's (all copies) for them to view.
I guess the endless repeat cycles of limited choices on movie satellite channels loses their attraction, too. As for TV programming, it's hardly worth buying TV set for.
I'll stick with my 2D TV
OK, it disappears completely when you look at it side on, and the cat was sliced in two when it tried to sleep on it, but at least it takes up no space whatsoever.
And even more than that...
A lot of high end 120Hz TVs can also become 3D at the touch of a firmware upgrade.
They are happy to do this because you still have to go out and buy a 200 quid /family member set of active glasses.
Re: And even more than that...
"They are happy to do this...."
Let's see. They can either give you an upgrade and flog you, say, five sets of glasses for 500 quid. Or they can *not* give you an upgrade and flog you a new telly at a couple of grand *and* 500 quid's worth of goggles.
I'll expect my free upgrade shortly after hell freezes over.
depends what is meant by 3d tv
if it's simply a tv capable of displaying at 120hz, for use with shutter glasses, then yes, a large number will probably be sold when it becomes the de-facto standard. Whether any of them are actually used for 3d is another matter.
Re: depends what is meant by 3d tv
I doubt very many of the 3D TVs in people's living rooms in 2015 will be used to view 3D content.
i tried watching 3d in the past as i thought oh il give it a how good or bad can it be omg i wish i didnt i ended up with such a bad head afterwords. jeese it hurt i personnally cant see us brits buying 3d tvs because of the price of them they did a survay wondering if people would go out and buy a 3d tv and it didnt suprise me that us brits just arnt interested in it ah well theres nothing with my samsung 40 inch 1080p it does the job nicely
I agree with the article, but you've missed an important point.
That the real driver of 3D TVs is going to be console gaming. The PS3 can already support this and apparently does with at least one game - Tumble.
I know the next TV I buy will be one that supports 3D and I expect my desire to upgrade will be driven by some "must have" game or application rather than a desire to watch 3D TV programes.
So I agree to some extent, I too don't think there will be much demand for 3D TV programes, but I think demand for 3D TV gaming and interactive experiences based on consoles will skyrocket.
Cos kids buy all the TVs?
And cos parents want their kids playing COD on the TV whilst they are trying to watch a documentary.
And kids don't all have PCs which can/will have a 3D monitor...
RE: Cos kids buy all the TVs?
Yeah, those "computer games" eh?
They'll never take off, in my day we used to make our own fun with a bucket and a bit of string. Kids these days etc etc...all fields...blah blah... ZZZZzzzzzzzz.
I'm really not so sure. Look at how long they were still selling TVs without Freeview tuners just to shave off a few pence from the selling price. And in that case there really was a compelling reason to buy them.
Not until the glasses go
Aye, baseless bullshit like a lot of other pie chart oracles.
The day I
That day I have to take a pair of crappy yet expensive glasses off to surf the web during the ad-breaks (maybe read the Reg, etc), then put them back on when the mythical 3D TV program that is worth watching comes back on, is the day I throw the TV out of the window.
Will I ever not prefer reading the Reg in 2D versus watching 3D adverts for CRAP - often for the exclusive use of the opposite sex anway? Not likely.
The day I pause the film to go for a piss and get my face yanked on by the now broken crappy yet expensive glasses is the day I whip the TV to death with them.
The day I have a pissup to watch the match and most of the people do not have glasses is the day the whole concept of glasses SUCKS. Oh no, that's every day.
The day the news or the market reports are meaningfully better in 3D is the day I eat my hat.
And there are better ways to improve the news more and sooner, and at lower cost than having them take 3D cams to war-zones and broadcast in 3D and everyone upgrade their sets...LIKE making any attempt whatsoever to provide content that is not just nicked from the local police/courts or the cheapest offered by AP/Reuters. Cos I can get that direct. In 2D - during the ad breaks, before it's on the TV and without the political inflections of the owners of each news corp (pun intended).
"Batteries not Included"
I mean Glasses
Excellent article and why Active Shutter LCD glasses "Stereoscopic TV " is the winner. Lenticular type displays that don't need glasses are very expensive on larger screen. Best for phones & Nintendo 3Ds type stuff. Limited view locations. Passive Glasses need expensive dual polarised screen.
Active Shutter is just a regular 100Hz or 120Hz LCD with a less than $2 transmitter port to sync glasses.
The Glasses will be expensive. Oh see? I have mine already :-)
They will claim great numbers shipped but not many will be using it. I hope the Broadcasters realise this as "HD" in 3D becomes 960 x 1080i or 720 x 1080i instead of the normal Broadcast HD in Europe typically 1920 x1080i satellite and anamorphic 1440 x 1080i on terrestrial
"3D" isn't 3D
It's binocular, not stereoscopic. You can't move your head and get a different perspective. No, I won't be bothering with 3Dtv.
The passive glasses are much better in terms of reduced flicker and headaches and that's why they're the ones you use in the cinema. Unfortunately, it costs more to add the necessary polarising filter to the TV screen so many manufacturers have gone for the inferior but cheaper active shutter system.
Also, you can keep the passive glasses you pay for in the cinema and use them at home but that doesn't line the manufacturers' pockets.
I would not buy an active shutter system because, essentially, they are sh!te.
Mine's the one with the passive glasses.
Every TV set I've ever owned was 3D
... although the LCD ones I was forced to buy when I couldn't get a CRT that did digital are much thinner.
- Vid Hubble 'scope snaps 200,000-ton chunky crumble conundrum
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Windows 8.1 Update 1 spewed online a MONTH early – by Microsoft
- Google offers up its own Googlers in cloud channel chumship trawl
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? Why can’t I walk past Maplin without buying stuff I don’t need?