We look at why the technology may not be as advanced as manufacturers claim
This year vendors are pushing expensive 3D displays, but the technology may not be as ready as they claim. We look at what's available and who needs it.
Conclusions
There will always be people who are driven to acquire the newest bleeding-edge technology, and those people have probably already bought a 3D TV. For the rest of us, it makes sense to wait until some of the kinks have been worked out of home 3D display technology.
The truth is that 3D isn't going to replace 2D - because there are plenty of reasons to keep 2D. It's practical, effective and above all cheap. Almost every 3D technology in existence today comes at a cost premium. Even when the costs fall, it will still be tougher to create 3D content - especially original 3D and not something merely resynthesized from 2D.
What 3D has done and will continue to do is create a small but significant market for specialty content. It won't eclipse 2D but rather will complement it - the way netbooks and the iPad are flanking and accompanying conventional desktops and laptops. And the move toward 3D that doesn't require anything but our own two eyes to see it means the adventure into a new dimension has barely begun.
Comments
paul c said: Sorry to say this but people in the highstreet will decide how popular the 3D tech will bethis new tech is coming in too quicklyi for one have not got a set top box for freeview yettransmitter only just been installed so switch on is not due untill later As for HDwhy botheryour money will dictate what you can afford
Robin Dudley said: for hris Johns well Chris Ive only seen it at the airport while waiting for a security check its up in the air and everyone seems to be able to see it when you move down the queue you get close and its still the same effect
John Smith said: that cost only a few dollars - but the sets themselves could cost anywhere from 300 and are different or do you cave to Americanizzzzation
HWJC said: Amazed that this article and discussion fails to mention the established fact that anything up to 12 of people will be physically incapable of seeing any 3D effect due to their eyesight - either having different vision in each eye or through debilitating physical effects such as headaches or sicknesswwwmediacollegecom3ddepth-
Chris Johns said: Robin Dudley said on Monday 28 June 2010Here in China they are already using 3DTV without the glasses How far from the TV do you have to be to get a 3D effect the best 3D effect Is the screen bright or only half-bright from being attenuated by a diffraction grating I assume there is no stero effect when lying on your side
Robin Dudley said: Here in China they are already using 3DTV without the glasses they have demo sets in Hong Kong airport and it looks good and No glasses
Poit said: Our 46 Samsung plus three pairs of glasses and new glass cabinet to stand it on cost 1476 all in And you know what Its brilliant making programmes like Springwatch and Saturdays Doctor Who finale come alive whilst giving gaming a fresh vitality and excitement The Samsung glasses are quite comfortable to wear even over the corrective glasses my wife and I both wearSorry to be so positive
Cyteck said: Anthony that concept is just ahead of its time although technically speaking its not really a new idea But its a concept that manufacturers have yet to realize and retailers dont understand amp cannot yet comprehend as they live in the how many units can we shift amp how much margin can be make mentality Rather than focusing on what the technology can offer or how it offers it Its just an idea ahead of its time like VR
Anthony O'Brien said: And if you need spectacles to view the results why not have the spectacles as the viewing mediumIm glad somebody made this point I made a similar remark to my local Sony stockist and he just stood there looking at me I was wondering if he thought I was intelligent or stupid
MalcolmF said: Anybody remember quadraphonic sound You didnt need extra ears but the simplest versions gave you a quad seat in the room the best had a quad sofaThisa stuff needs spectacles for each viewer I remember the polarised ones from one of the sideshows at Universal Studios The effects were good but for a spectacle wearer uncomfortableAnd if you need spectacles to view the results why not have the spectacles as the viewing medium
David Staples said: 3D capacity on a new high-end TV may not add that much to the base price - figure on at least 1500 for a 46in TVI take it youve not been following the price of non-HD TVs
Cyteck said: No1 Its worth bearing in mind that 3D has to compete already with HD high definition amp it is high definition which will become mainstream NOT 3DNo2 Until the costs of creating 3D content films comes down to the same price as 2D it wont take off in the main stream it will always remain for the wealthy or a niche productNo3 The future of TV is 100 NOT in 3D the next revolution in TVs is going to be the internet connected HD TV This will be dependent on the next generation of high speed VDSL broadbandNo4 In the future there will be a major shift away from conventional delivery methods ie broadcast via Ariel dish and towards services delivered via the internet down a cable or network connection High speed broadband will deliver HD quality content