Frank agree with you on the having to wear these goggles. Im not saying they will be not be comfortable as im sure they will.......but this doesn't seem practical, to have to wear the glasses to see when you are relaxing. Sorry if i offend people who wear glasses. But in avatar the glasses were not what i would like to wear or use all the time to watch tv. Maybe as a novelty thing but all the time just isnt going to work.
RodhasGibson
Well-known member
exciting times I'd say
I was considering buying a Panasonic V10 - but its a no brainer to now wait for the 2010 range of Panasonics
even if its for additional cost, the thought of Kuro esque technology, almost zero phosphor trails, and 3D all in a Panasonic - well count me in
I was considering buying a Panasonic V10 - but its a no brainer to now wait for the 2010 range of Panasonics
even if its for additional cost, the thought of Kuro esque technology, almost zero phosphor trails, and 3D all in a Panasonic - well count me in
Buckshar:
exciting times I'd say
I was considering buying a Panasonic V10 - but its a no brainer to now wait for the 2010 range of Panasonics
even if its for additional cost, the thought of Kuro esque technology, almost zero phosphor trails, and 3D all in a Panasonic - well count me in
i for one , have had a 3d gaurd up , ive convinced myself that no matter what reviews i read , or what people say on here , i wont be going 3d....
that was until i heard about a panasonic , thats potentially as good as a kuro , that just happens to have 3d too ...
if that potential is realised , at a sensible price , my g10 will be up on flea bay later this year , and ill be going 3d , by default if you see what i mean ...
exciting times I'd say
I was considering buying a Panasonic V10 - but its a no brainer to now wait for the 2010 range of Panasonics
even if its for additional cost, the thought of Kuro esque technology, almost zero phosphor trails, and 3D all in a Panasonic - well count me in
i for one , have had a 3d gaurd up , ive convinced myself that no matter what reviews i read , or what people say on here , i wont be going 3d....
that was until i heard about a panasonic , thats potentially as good as a kuro , that just happens to have 3d too ...
if that potential is realised , at a sensible price , my g10 will be up on flea bay later this year , and ill be going 3d , by default if you see what i mean ...
maxflinn:Buckshar:
exciting times I'd say
I was considering buying a Panasonic V10 - but its a no brainer to now wait for the 2010 range of Panasonics
even if its for additional cost, the thought of Kuro esque technology, almost zero phosphor trails, and 3D all in a Panasonic - well count me in
i for one , have had a 3d gaurd up , ive convinced myself that no matter what reviews i read , or what people say on here , i wont be going 3d....
that was until i heard about a panasonic , thats potentially as good as a kuro , that just happens to have 3d too ...
if that potential is realised , at a sensible price , my g10 will be up on flea bay later this year , and ill be going 3d , by default if you see what i mean ...
My sentiments exactly! A new telly is already on my upgrade list for this year, though later in the year as first I'm looking forward to upgrading my speaker package to a MA RX6AV system. Hopefully Panasonic will be sensible in pricing, though I wouldn't stand on one leg... I've read far too many comments about the manufacturers looking to 3d to save the industry that has been depressed by falling TV prices. The gist of these kinds of comments, to me, read "We think we've finally found a feature that can prop up premium price brackets and we've been desperate to regain some of our non-existent sales margins."
At least the speaker package will be future proof
exciting times I'd say
I was considering buying a Panasonic V10 - but its a no brainer to now wait for the 2010 range of Panasonics
even if its for additional cost, the thought of Kuro esque technology, almost zero phosphor trails, and 3D all in a Panasonic - well count me in
i for one , have had a 3d gaurd up , ive convinced myself that no matter what reviews i read , or what people say on here , i wont be going 3d....
that was until i heard about a panasonic , thats potentially as good as a kuro , that just happens to have 3d too ...
if that potential is realised , at a sensible price , my g10 will be up on flea bay later this year , and ill be going 3d , by default if you see what i mean ...
My sentiments exactly! A new telly is already on my upgrade list for this year, though later in the year as first I'm looking forward to upgrading my speaker package to a MA RX6AV system. Hopefully Panasonic will be sensible in pricing, though I wouldn't stand on one leg... I've read far too many comments about the manufacturers looking to 3d to save the industry that has been depressed by falling TV prices. The gist of these kinds of comments, to me, read "We think we've finally found a feature that can prop up premium price brackets and we've been desperate to regain some of our non-existent sales margins."
At least the speaker package will be future proof
I'll buy into it ....in a few years time maybe. Which is how long I think it will be before there is a decent amount of quality content available and the hardware has both overcome any teething problems and gets marketed at a realistic price.
I think I'm done with the pitfalls that being an early adopter entails - regardless of hardware/firmware issues, it's quite sickening to see your new BD player being sold for nearly half what you paid for it a few months down the line, or the newest generation of Kuro that you paid £5k for being sold for over £1.5k cheaper less than a year later.
I agree it's fun to be one of the first to embrace a new technology (if you're a bit of a geek on the quiet like I am), but it comes at a price - and I think I might sit this one out for a while.
I think I'm done with the pitfalls that being an early adopter entails - regardless of hardware/firmware issues, it's quite sickening to see your new BD player being sold for nearly half what you paid for it a few months down the line, or the newest generation of Kuro that you paid £5k for being sold for over £1.5k cheaper less than a year later.
I agree it's fun to be one of the first to embrace a new technology (if you're a bit of a geek on the quiet like I am), but it comes at a price - and I think I might sit this one out for a while.
Clare Newsome:FrankHarveyHiFi:
The biggest hurdle will be getting people to wear stupid, uncomfortable goggles. As long as this is an issue, it's not happening.
Several of the 'goggles' here on show here are neither stupid nor uncomfortable - they're nicely designed, lightweight products that'll suit a range of head-shapes (and slip over specs).... I'd reserve judgement until you've at least tried the gear in question!
Mind you just think of the market for "Powergoggles" with the internal wiring braded , forget about the ones that come with the kit for free , must be a market for £150.00 to £250 specs
Should have gone to 3d savers
Note: not slagging off Audio/Videophiles , as I have just bought esoteric mains cables and equipment
The biggest hurdle will be getting people to wear stupid, uncomfortable goggles. As long as this is an issue, it's not happening.
Several of the 'goggles' here on show here are neither stupid nor uncomfortable - they're nicely designed, lightweight products that'll suit a range of head-shapes (and slip over specs).... I'd reserve judgement until you've at least tried the gear in question!
Mind you just think of the market for "Powergoggles" with the internal wiring braded , forget about the ones that come with the kit for free , must be a market for £150.00 to £250 specs
Should have gone to 3d savers
Note: not slagging off Audio/Videophiles , as I have just bought esoteric mains cables and equipment
Diamond Joe
Well-known member
I'm definitely not interested, and I really hope they aren't diverting resources away from OLED research, now that's something I really am looking forward to. Incidentally, I'm genuinely surprised by how little interest there is with everyone here, perhaps people in other markets (Japan, USA?) have a totally different take on 3D, if not then the manufacturers really are barking up the wrong tree.
Panasonic Store:
I think it's going to be a slow burner, everyone is excited about 3D but it will take time to see it do well as like most people have said... it's going to be very very expensive and there is so many ways 3D is being portrayed by many manufacturers, there is no set one standard, so the answer to your question...
Not everyone im afraid
I think it's going to be a slow burner, everyone is excited about 3D but it will take time to see it do well as like most people have said... it's going to be very very expensive and there is so many ways 3D is being portrayed by many manufacturers, there is no set one standard, so the answer to your question...
Not everyone im afraid
I will do my penny pinching usual. watch with amazement as all the 'early adopters' dive in and constantly upgrade for a few years. Bemoaning on other forums just how bad their purchase was only 6 months ago.
Watch it go mainstream, then the huge price drops, as a standard starts to develop, and all manufacturers settle on a general way to do things.
Then wait for my TV to knacker and hopefully get a year old model reccomended by What hi-fi for about £500.00
Watch it go mainstream, then the huge price drops, as a standard starts to develop, and all manufacturers settle on a general way to do things.
Then wait for my TV to knacker and hopefully get a year old model reccomended by What hi-fi for about £500.00
visionary
Well-known member
method man:
I will do my penny pinching usual. watch with amazement as all the 'early adopters' dive in and constantly upgrade for a few years. Bemoaning on other forums just how bad their purchase was only 6 months ago.
Watch it go mainstream, then the huge price drops, as a standard starts to develop, and all manufacturers settle on a general way to do things.
Then wait for my TV to knacker and hopefully get a year old model reccomended by What hi-fi for about £500.00
You forgot to say " and having an eye test to make sure my eyes have clear,
balanced vision and work together well enough to appreciate the benefit
of 3D"
I will do my penny pinching usual. watch with amazement as all the 'early adopters' dive in and constantly upgrade for a few years. Bemoaning on other forums just how bad their purchase was only 6 months ago.
Watch it go mainstream, then the huge price drops, as a standard starts to develop, and all manufacturers settle on a general way to do things.
Then wait for my TV to knacker and hopefully get a year old model reccomended by What hi-fi for about £500.00
You forgot to say " and having an eye test to make sure my eyes have clear,
balanced vision and work together well enough to appreciate the benefit
of 3D"
Interesting debate this, so many people have just said 'no, not for me'. Are they talking about now, or forever? I've been using stereo glasses (both passive and active) for almost ten years as a photogrammetrist (look up photogrammetry on wiki), with much more uncomfortable and weird looking glasses than those shown by Panasonic and Sony and I've never found them a problem. Referring to them as goggles will hardly endear them to the public that's for sure.
I see 3D as just another step, but as important as the move to sound and colour. For me the whole point of such entertainment is to make you feel like you're part of the action (preferably not for Eastenders though), and 3D is the next big step. Yes some people won't be able to view it well if at all (some of my colleagues do not have suitable stereo acuity to judge depth using our kit). The tech is here and has been since the 90s for CRT systems, the delay until now is getting LCDs to have sufficient frame rates to support the image switch without noticable flicker. For the manufacturers the tech is relatively cheap to implement, yes it will cost more, but mainly due to the hype. The difficulty is in supplying good quality content. Yes I'm interested, I need a new TV this year, but even I only expect to watch movies with it. How many of you only have black and white TVs cause you didn't see the point in colour (or you suffer from colour blindness)? Not many I reckon. This will take time to settle down, the content is starting to grow and the kit will follow. What do you find more immersive - TV or real life?
I see 3D as just another step, but as important as the move to sound and colour. For me the whole point of such entertainment is to make you feel like you're part of the action (preferably not for Eastenders though), and 3D is the next big step. Yes some people won't be able to view it well if at all (some of my colleagues do not have suitable stereo acuity to judge depth using our kit). The tech is here and has been since the 90s for CRT systems, the delay until now is getting LCDs to have sufficient frame rates to support the image switch without noticable flicker. For the manufacturers the tech is relatively cheap to implement, yes it will cost more, but mainly due to the hype. The difficulty is in supplying good quality content. Yes I'm interested, I need a new TV this year, but even I only expect to watch movies with it. How many of you only have black and white TVs cause you didn't see the point in colour (or you suffer from colour blindness)? Not many I reckon. This will take time to settle down, the content is starting to grow and the kit will follow. What do you find more immersive - TV or real life?
Like i've said before this is going to be a costly learning curve for the manufacturers , its not the first time major manufacturers have moved tech on and failed .
It doesn't mean with the cinema's being so successful with 3D over the last year TV's at home are going to be
I think maybe the odd film being broadcast in 3D is a good option
It doesn't mean with the cinema's being so successful with 3D over the last year TV's at home are going to be
I think maybe the odd film being broadcast in 3D is a good option
I will wait and see if it is a gimmick with limited programs to see or still has inherent issues for many with prolonged viewing.
Alot of the manufactures seem to be promoting real time algorithims to convert everything to pseudo 3D, and TV networks are promising 3D channels. Have they trialed these systems with repeated prolonged viewing times in living room conditions? When asked about prolonged viewing and headaches some manufactures are apparantly recommending viewing for only 2.5-3Hrs or saying it may cause somepeople to suffer headaches.
The inherent problem of 3D (using binocular disparity) on a 2D display is the conflict between
Convergence, eyes converge on the object of intrest
Accomodiation (focus), eyes lenses focus on the object of intrest
They do not have any accomodation, so the eye is always having to correct its focus as objects of intrest do not change focus distance in the third dimension as the eyes/brain expects them to with the change in convergence. This is particularly bad with rapid movement in the third dimension and gets worse the closer the object appears to be to the viewer by the display using binocular disparity to fool the eyes/brain.
The eyes/brain can not learn to dis-join the link between convergence and accomodation, it ends up bobing between the two when they do not tally. Except in the case of scare stories about children viewing too much 3D, in Japan has lead to atleast one claim of a child going permanetly cross-eyed.
As well as causing eyestrain the lack of accomodation leads to the unrealistic representation of the subject of intrest being infocus with the background out of focus but looking like you should be able to focus on it due to convergence, or the whole image being infocus despite convergence saying it should not be. This can make it appear abit like a childs pop up book.
The effectiveness of the displays also varies between viewers depending how much their eyes/brian rely on monocular and binocular depth cues, only 1% or less of people are blind in one eye, but their are estimates of upto 5-8% being stereo blind, they see with both eyes but do not combine depth cues, and anywhere from 6-30% with some impairment to stereo vision. But that does leaves 70%+ who will see the full effect.
They also do not have movement parallax, as your eyes and head move the images remain fixed views, so you need to keep your head still for best effect.
They do not fool the inner ear, so if they are very convincing with rapid point of view - camera movement they are likely to induce nausea with some viewers, as the brain trusts the inner ears more than the eyes, if the eyes say your moving and the ears say your not, it can cause the brain to assume your hallucinating due to eating something poisonous. Since the displays occupy a relative small part of the viewers field of view this is unlikely to be a problem with 3D TVs as the peripheral vision is most sensitive motion. Which leads to another limitation they occupy too little of the field of view, the real world is not displayed in a little box in the center of the field of view.
Of the varying methods of achieving binocular disparity. Circular polarizaton glasses as used by RealD and displays with passive glasses, can suffer some cross-polarization ghosting. This maybe distracting - annoying if it occurs too frequently. Shutter glasses in sync with the display have no ghosting and the displays using 240fps, 120fps per eye look good as they are using even pull down with 24fps film sources 5:5 and they are well over the 75fps generally needed for most people to not percieve flicker with bright displays. The shutter systems using 120fps, 60fps per eye maybe less good, as they are using uneven pull down 3:2 with 24fps film sources so introducing a bit of motion judder, and are below the 75fps needed for most people to not percieve any flickering. CRT TVs could get away with 50Hz PAL and 60Hz NTSC because they occupied a small part of your field of view, and peripheral vision is most flicker sensitive, the flat pannels also occupy a small field of view but the shutter glasses cover your whole field of view and are the things rapidly flicking on/off. Dolby 3D using different narrow band RGB filters for each eye would be the best system for projectors but is impractical for flat pannels. Displays without glasses using leticular lenses or parallax barriers usually have limited sweetspots for viewing are more expensive to make and may compromise some 2D or 3D picture quality - resolution.
I think it would have been more advantageous if they had gone with increasing frame rates of the filming as the next improvement in picture quality, improving temporal resolution. The frame rate of capture determines how blurry the image needs to be in scenes with motion, so that judder is not perceived. It is why films use a short depth of focus on moving shoots to make the moving background go out of focus. With higher frame rates the background could be kept sharper, and this would provide more depth cues, making traditional 2D images appear to have more depth as well as 3D ones.
I have found several papers on the internet about eyestrain induced by 3D
"Stereoscopic 3-D display with optical correction for the reduction of the discrepancy between accommodation and convergence"
Which attempts different solutions to the problem of "Many cases of asthenopia-induced headaches are caused by an inability to achieve accommodation or convergence"
Asthenopia symptoms are headache, tearing, eye smarting, blurred vision, double vision, ocular itching, photophobia, blinking, nausea, eye heaviness.
"Eyestrain induced by stereogram on 3-D display. Differences between types of correction"
Which says in the summary "15 min of sustained visual load, the near point of accommodation was prolonged significantly in the groups without correction and with soft contact lenses(SCL), and accommodative contraction and relaxation times were significant delayed in the groups without correction, with hard contact lenses(HCL), and with SCL but not in the group with spectacles"
"Significant increase in the rating questionnaire was found in the subjective symptoms of "eyestrain", "eye heaviness", "clouding", "eye dryness" and "irritation of eyes" after loading in the groups without correction, with hard contact lenses (HCL), and with soft contact lenses (SCL). In the spectacle group, there was no significant change in the subjective symptoms of "clouding" and "eye dryness"
So it may not be good for prolonged viewing for somepeople with glasses due to lack of adaption making the eyes work hard, and some with contact lenses due to eye irratation.
"Reduction of asthenopia related to accommodative relaxation by means of far point stimuli" which also deals with 3D displays and the possible reduction of asthenopia they can cause. Out of 22 students, 10 shifted to hypermetropic and suffered no adverse effects, 12 shifted to myopic with increased chance of suffering symptoms of asthenopia.
It does not state how many had contact lenses, specticles, etc.. But it looks like alot of people just under half will be completely happy with 3D even if these issues have not been solved.
It maybe like front projector dlp rainbow effect, some are very sensitive and find them unwatchable or get headaches or feel ill, others are not sensitive and dismiss those that are as not having the display setup right, or exagerating. Dlp when first launched was only 2x colorwheel speed and I expect Texas Instruments thought it worked find, they may have been suprised by the number of complaints and loss of potential sales caused by worry over dlp rainbows they got. I hope manufactures of these 3D displays have tested/trialled them and can confidently reasure any potential purchasers that they will not induce eye-strain or headaches anymore than a traditional 2D display.
I hope this is not an issue, or has been solved.
If it is an issue I hope it only occurs with prolonged viewing or can be reduced by filming 3D within certain restrictions, like current 2D filming at 24fps requires a short depth of field and not too fast pans on movement to prevent perception of jerking movement and potential viewer nausea.
Alot of the manufactures seem to be promoting real time algorithims to convert everything to pseudo 3D, and TV networks are promising 3D channels. Have they trialed these systems with repeated prolonged viewing times in living room conditions? When asked about prolonged viewing and headaches some manufactures are apparantly recommending viewing for only 2.5-3Hrs or saying it may cause somepeople to suffer headaches.
The inherent problem of 3D (using binocular disparity) on a 2D display is the conflict between
Convergence, eyes converge on the object of intrest
Accomodiation (focus), eyes lenses focus on the object of intrest
They do not have any accomodation, so the eye is always having to correct its focus as objects of intrest do not change focus distance in the third dimension as the eyes/brain expects them to with the change in convergence. This is particularly bad with rapid movement in the third dimension and gets worse the closer the object appears to be to the viewer by the display using binocular disparity to fool the eyes/brain.
The eyes/brain can not learn to dis-join the link between convergence and accomodation, it ends up bobing between the two when they do not tally. Except in the case of scare stories about children viewing too much 3D, in Japan has lead to atleast one claim of a child going permanetly cross-eyed.
As well as causing eyestrain the lack of accomodation leads to the unrealistic representation of the subject of intrest being infocus with the background out of focus but looking like you should be able to focus on it due to convergence, or the whole image being infocus despite convergence saying it should not be. This can make it appear abit like a childs pop up book.
The effectiveness of the displays also varies between viewers depending how much their eyes/brian rely on monocular and binocular depth cues, only 1% or less of people are blind in one eye, but their are estimates of upto 5-8% being stereo blind, they see with both eyes but do not combine depth cues, and anywhere from 6-30% with some impairment to stereo vision. But that does leaves 70%+ who will see the full effect.
They also do not have movement parallax, as your eyes and head move the images remain fixed views, so you need to keep your head still for best effect.
They do not fool the inner ear, so if they are very convincing with rapid point of view - camera movement they are likely to induce nausea with some viewers, as the brain trusts the inner ears more than the eyes, if the eyes say your moving and the ears say your not, it can cause the brain to assume your hallucinating due to eating something poisonous. Since the displays occupy a relative small part of the viewers field of view this is unlikely to be a problem with 3D TVs as the peripheral vision is most sensitive motion. Which leads to another limitation they occupy too little of the field of view, the real world is not displayed in a little box in the center of the field of view.
Of the varying methods of achieving binocular disparity. Circular polarizaton glasses as used by RealD and displays with passive glasses, can suffer some cross-polarization ghosting. This maybe distracting - annoying if it occurs too frequently. Shutter glasses in sync with the display have no ghosting and the displays using 240fps, 120fps per eye look good as they are using even pull down with 24fps film sources 5:5 and they are well over the 75fps generally needed for most people to not percieve flicker with bright displays. The shutter systems using 120fps, 60fps per eye maybe less good, as they are using uneven pull down 3:2 with 24fps film sources so introducing a bit of motion judder, and are below the 75fps needed for most people to not percieve any flickering. CRT TVs could get away with 50Hz PAL and 60Hz NTSC because they occupied a small part of your field of view, and peripheral vision is most flicker sensitive, the flat pannels also occupy a small field of view but the shutter glasses cover your whole field of view and are the things rapidly flicking on/off. Dolby 3D using different narrow band RGB filters for each eye would be the best system for projectors but is impractical for flat pannels. Displays without glasses using leticular lenses or parallax barriers usually have limited sweetspots for viewing are more expensive to make and may compromise some 2D or 3D picture quality - resolution.
I think it would have been more advantageous if they had gone with increasing frame rates of the filming as the next improvement in picture quality, improving temporal resolution. The frame rate of capture determines how blurry the image needs to be in scenes with motion, so that judder is not perceived. It is why films use a short depth of focus on moving shoots to make the moving background go out of focus. With higher frame rates the background could be kept sharper, and this would provide more depth cues, making traditional 2D images appear to have more depth as well as 3D ones.
I have found several papers on the internet about eyestrain induced by 3D
"Stereoscopic 3-D display with optical correction for the reduction of the discrepancy between accommodation and convergence"
Which attempts different solutions to the problem of "Many cases of asthenopia-induced headaches are caused by an inability to achieve accommodation or convergence"
Asthenopia symptoms are headache, tearing, eye smarting, blurred vision, double vision, ocular itching, photophobia, blinking, nausea, eye heaviness.
"Eyestrain induced by stereogram on 3-D display. Differences between types of correction"
Which says in the summary "15 min of sustained visual load, the near point of accommodation was prolonged significantly in the groups without correction and with soft contact lenses(SCL), and accommodative contraction and relaxation times were significant delayed in the groups without correction, with hard contact lenses(HCL), and with SCL but not in the group with spectacles"
"Significant increase in the rating questionnaire was found in the subjective symptoms of "eyestrain", "eye heaviness", "clouding", "eye dryness" and "irritation of eyes" after loading in the groups without correction, with hard contact lenses (HCL), and with soft contact lenses (SCL). In the spectacle group, there was no significant change in the subjective symptoms of "clouding" and "eye dryness"
So it may not be good for prolonged viewing for somepeople with glasses due to lack of adaption making the eyes work hard, and some with contact lenses due to eye irratation.
"Reduction of asthenopia related to accommodative relaxation by means of far point stimuli" which also deals with 3D displays and the possible reduction of asthenopia they can cause. Out of 22 students, 10 shifted to hypermetropic and suffered no adverse effects, 12 shifted to myopic with increased chance of suffering symptoms of asthenopia.
It does not state how many had contact lenses, specticles, etc.. But it looks like alot of people just under half will be completely happy with 3D even if these issues have not been solved.
It maybe like front projector dlp rainbow effect, some are very sensitive and find them unwatchable or get headaches or feel ill, others are not sensitive and dismiss those that are as not having the display setup right, or exagerating. Dlp when first launched was only 2x colorwheel speed and I expect Texas Instruments thought it worked find, they may have been suprised by the number of complaints and loss of potential sales caused by worry over dlp rainbows they got. I hope manufactures of these 3D displays have tested/trialled them and can confidently reasure any potential purchasers that they will not induce eye-strain or headaches anymore than a traditional 2D display.
I hope this is not an issue, or has been solved.
If it is an issue I hope it only occurs with prolonged viewing or can be reduced by filming 3D within certain restrictions, like current 2D filming at 24fps requires a short depth of field and not too fast pans on movement to prevent perception of jerking movement and potential viewer nausea.
kaotician:Well I'm in. I can't wait to see this new leap forward in the flesh.
Expect a 'leap forward' in cost too!
Expect a 'leap forward' in cost too!
I'm out I almost finished my system and now I am supposed to start over, Yea Right!!!!
1) 3D TV ready ( This is important as it isn't a 3D TV just 3D ready this is starting to sound familiar HD ready TV)
2) 3D Receiver
3) 3D Blueray player
4) 3D version 1.4 HDMI cables (till version 2.0 HDMI cables are needed for 3D HD True surround sound this part I am making up.)
5) all my Bluerays re-released as 3D Blueray
6) I don't see this 3D as the new best thing. It will be good when like we all are saying we don't need the Glasses
1) 3D TV ready ( This is important as it isn't a 3D TV just 3D ready this is starting to sound familiar HD ready TV)
2) 3D Receiver
3) 3D Blueray player
4) 3D version 1.4 HDMI cables (till version 2.0 HDMI cables are needed for 3D HD True surround sound this part I am making up.)
5) all my Bluerays re-released as 3D Blueray
6) I don't see this 3D as the new best thing. It will be good when like we all are saying we don't need the Glasses
Nope. Still struggling with the benefits that Blu-ray would have over my DV79 so 3D TV is a definite no-no. Maybe next time I upgrade my telly (ie when it breaks).
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Is hi-fi really getting better? Our technical editor ponders its progression
- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 18
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram