Audio advice and discussions with audiophiles and professionals. Free discussion forums, open to all and frequented by industry experts. Ask questions and get advice on stereos, speakers, hi-end amplifiers, pre-amps, home theater, tube hi-fi, turntables, vinyl, tweaks, music, films, video, DVDs and more.
Does anyone have a 3D TV? Or are you planning on getting one soon? I don't have one and I don't think I want one. I wonder if the picture is all distorted or if you have to wear special glasses?
I saw one set up at a Best Buy, and the picture was distorted until you put the glasses on. I'm not sure if some have a setting where you can watch programs "normally," but then again, what would the point of a 3D TV be, then? Until more TV programs and movies are offered in 3D, I'm not even thinking about it.
I have been wondering about 3D TV myself. If anyone has these 3D TV, would be interested in hearing how it's working out. I wear glasses and I'd have to wear those 3D glasses over it. It doesn't provide for all that great of a viewing experience, not to mention how hilarious I look with a crooked 3D glass over my regular one.
I really, really want to get a 3D TV. I have seen them a few times when I've been to places like Apple (I think it was) and Best Buy. They are so neat. They even had a little kiosk set up at the local mall and I wanted to sit in there and watch a whole movie haha. Eventually, I will get one but it may take years. It's not on the top of my to-do list.
I've not yet viewed a 3D TV, but my guess is that they are still on the primitive side. Kind of like the first TV, with black and white pictures and a small screen. Isn't 3D TV more like the first step in Virtual Reality? Or possibly the visual equivalent to surround sound? (okay, maybe not equivalent, but headed in that direction)
After playing around with stereographs, 3D is far far better at texture. Texture looks real in 3-D, not like a pattern. If they could just get that one thing right and forget the jumping out the screen non-sense, people would be eager to buy after seeing how subtle, yet hugely significant the difference is. Since our eyes are never fully 100% in focus and one of them must be out a tiny bit, why not just project two images at a very slight angle difference and your eye will naturally "lock on" to each dimension in the picture without having to strain your eyes as much as traditional stereographic images. It isn't what "Jaws 3D" had in mind in the 80's but it is the realistic portrayal of the images people are after, not the flash in the pan effects.
I like watching 3D movies inside the theaters but I haven't tried watching 3D inside a house. I won't buy a 3D TV until I've experienced it for myself. Besides, I think there are only a few TV shows that portray 3D.
Adveser wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 02:22 After playing around with stereographs, 3D is far far better at texture. Texture looks real in 3-D, not like a pattern. If they could just get that one thing right and forget the jumping out the screen non-sense, people would be eager to buy after seeing how subtle, yet hugely significant the difference is. Since our eyes are never fully 100% in focus and one of them must be out a tiny bit, why not just project two images at a very slight angle difference and your eye will naturally "lock on" to each dimension in the picture without having to strain your eyes as much as traditional stereographic images. It isn't what "Jaws 3D" had in mind in the 80's but it is the realistic portrayal of the images people are after, not the flash in the pan effects. Sounds like a great idea to me. I totally agree. This would be a great measure for advancement in this format. If people can see an improvement such as this, I'm sure the sales would increase. I could see how this would improve 3D for home.