Odd title, I know, but bear with me. I'm not referring to the question of whether or not 3D TV is necessary - obviously it isn't, but a lot of people - especially those working for Sky, Sony, Samsung, etc, would like to hope it is - but rather the question of whether it is actually necessary to have a TV specifically designed for 3D to display 3D. Are we being sold a line by the TV manufacturers desperate for us to buy new kit at premium prices?
What got me thinking was the line in this month's (April 2010) WHFSV in the article on "Why your next TV will be the best ever!" The line in question was:
"That's because 3D compatibility has to be engineered into a TV when it's first built: it can't be retrofitted using a set-top-box or other adaptor."
But that's not true is it? Why can't a 3D blu-ray player (or set-top-box) be engineered to send the sequential series of Left/Right images at 60Hz (say, giving a 30Hz effective refresh rate) to a TV and have the transmitter on-board to operate shuttered 3D-glasses - maybe if IR is used, with a cable and transmitter to put near the TV screen? OK, the TV would have to operate at 60Hz (say) and you wouldn't want any inter-frame interpolation (which would ruin the 3D effect) and it would have to have a fast refresh rate. So my KRP500A would be perfect. OK, there would need to be some calibration to ensure the shutter specs were synchronised with the screen, but I suspect this would be on per model basis and the numbers would soon be posted on the internet.
And that's the point. There are a lot of people out there who have high-end expensive kit, and/or home cinema installs where they don't want to splash out on a brand new screen (or projector) which could well be the single most expensive part of their set up, but still want 3D. They would definitely be in the market for a 3D enabling box or BD player that will allow them to use their existing kit and I can't see any technical reason why one couldn't be produced.
(And don't get me started on HDMI 1.4/1.4a
- new TV, amp and player - kerching.)
What got me thinking was the line in this month's (April 2010) WHFSV in the article on "Why your next TV will be the best ever!" The line in question was:
"That's because 3D compatibility has to be engineered into a TV when it's first built: it can't be retrofitted using a set-top-box or other adaptor."
But that's not true is it? Why can't a 3D blu-ray player (or set-top-box) be engineered to send the sequential series of Left/Right images at 60Hz (say, giving a 30Hz effective refresh rate) to a TV and have the transmitter on-board to operate shuttered 3D-glasses - maybe if IR is used, with a cable and transmitter to put near the TV screen? OK, the TV would have to operate at 60Hz (say) and you wouldn't want any inter-frame interpolation (which would ruin the 3D effect) and it would have to have a fast refresh rate. So my KRP500A would be perfect. OK, there would need to be some calibration to ensure the shutter specs were synchronised with the screen, but I suspect this would be on per model basis and the numbers would soon be posted on the internet.
And that's the point. There are a lot of people out there who have high-end expensive kit, and/or home cinema installs where they don't want to splash out on a brand new screen (or projector) which could well be the single most expensive part of their set up, but still want 3D. They would definitely be in the market for a 3D enabling box or BD player that will allow them to use their existing kit and I can't see any technical reason why one couldn't be produced.
(And don't get me started on HDMI 1.4/1.4a