Oh goodie, North America eh.
Sony has confirmed plans to launch a 3D TV channel in North America, as expected, in partnership with Imax and Discovery Communications - the firm behind The Discovery Channel. The channel opens for business in 2011 and will broadcast 24/7 a diet of science and technology, natural history, space, adventure and kid’s shows. …
Oh goodie, North America eh.
I don't understand 3d tv , doesn't this mean that either you buy lots and lots of glasses, or the screen will look mad to people who don't have them? How do 3d glasses work, if you wear glasses?
It really does seem like desperation about trying to sell more hardware when we haven't got anywhere near decent HD tv yet.
If you wear glasses, either you wear additional glasses over the top, or clip-ons.
I'm presuming the new 3D tellies use a fancy screen and cheap polarised glasses, rather than a fairly ordinary screen and expensive shutter glasses..
The problem with this is that the "expensive shutter glasses" tend to have two polarizing sheets of glass with a single pixel LCD polarization rotating element in between. These pieces of glass are quite small, and the TV only needs a cheap IR trasnmitter to sync the glasses.
The screens that use normal polarising glasses tend to have an extra single-pixel LCD style element to rotate he polarization in front of the normal LCD screen. On a large TV like 40" or so, this is quite a large component, will add a fair bit to the cost, compared to just having a IR emitter to control the shutter glasses.
Personally, I prefer the polarizing glasses because the lenses tend to be curved and are easier to use, but I think this is the expensive route.
Until they can do 3DTV (or movies) without the specs then it's no more than an expensive gimmick IMO.
Most 3d films i've seen just have gratuitous "ooh look how this pops out at you in 3d" shots which add nothing to the plot of the piece. Just eye candy.
Approximately 6 years after HD screens first appeared in the UK we still only have 2 or 3 free to air HD channels - one of which (BBC HD) has attracted a raft of complaints as it's quality has been downgraded; although of course no-one at the BBC will actually admit this or directly respond to the question. The only other HD channels are pay per view or subscription, and from what I have seen on those the content doesn't really justify the additional monthly cost.
So... what the hell is the point of 3D TV in this case? I can't even see early adopting techno nerds falling for this additional cost.
...can take advantage of this 3D technology. I have a very pronounced squint, and so cannot percieve 3D nearly as well as those with normal sight. At the moment 2D Tv is watchable by anyone, even spazmos like me with less-than-average eyesight.
I worry that at some point in the future 2D will be like black-and-white, sidelined and ultimately dropped. Perhaps I'm just worrying too much.
Let's have a good run with HD, large flat panels etc before all this ridiculous 3D rubbish.
No-one wants to have to put glasses on to what TV, unless you're watching some Avatar-esque film it would be pointless anyway, you can't convert existing films / TV progs to 3D either so it would only be for new content, most of which isn't worth watching anyway.
I'd have some polarised contact-lenses though.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017