3D TV without glasses is here!!
Discussion
at a price.........
http://www.stuff.tv/news/tv-and-hi-fi/news-nugget/...
Toshiba's massive 55in glasses-free 3D TV, the ZL2, has just got the nod for an exclusive release at John Lewis, Oxford Street from Monday – that's March 12th. The impressive TV not only uses a lenticular screen to deliver a 3D picture to both eyes simultaneously, it also doesn't shirk in the resolution stakes.
The ZL2 has an incredible 3,840 x 2,160px Quad Full HD display so it's likely to cope with whatever broadcasters manage to put out for the next few years at least. If you're worried about the lack of 4K content for now, you'll be laughing when the rest of the world catches up with Tosh.
Just prepare to cry a little inside when we tell you that the Toshiba ZL2 will set you back £7000 when it goes on sale on March 12th. We suggest arriving at John Lewis with wheelbarrows full of cash so the staff know which TV to direct you to. And if you like to get your gagdet fix Knightsbridge-way, the ZL2 will also be stocked at Harrods at a later date.
http://www.stuff.tv/news/tv-and-hi-fi/news-nugget/...
Toshiba's massive 55in glasses-free 3D TV, the ZL2, has just got the nod for an exclusive release at John Lewis, Oxford Street from Monday – that's March 12th. The impressive TV not only uses a lenticular screen to deliver a 3D picture to both eyes simultaneously, it also doesn't shirk in the resolution stakes.
The ZL2 has an incredible 3,840 x 2,160px Quad Full HD display so it's likely to cope with whatever broadcasters manage to put out for the next few years at least. If you're worried about the lack of 4K content for now, you'll be laughing when the rest of the world catches up with Tosh.
Just prepare to cry a little inside when we tell you that the Toshiba ZL2 will set you back £7000 when it goes on sale on March 12th. We suggest arriving at John Lewis with wheelbarrows full of cash so the staff know which TV to direct you to. And if you like to get your gagdet fix Knightsbridge-way, the ZL2 will also be stocked at Harrods at a later date.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
If you can't, I'd suggest you're eyesight is not very good, or not very attuned to images. The different on even a 40" screen is very much apparent at only 2-3 metres. I recall seeing one of the first 2160 screens (40 or so inches) at IBC in 2007, the image quality was in an entirely different league to 1080, although of course, it's content dependent, as for instance, an upscaled 1080 image at 2160 will look little different.Yes, the optimum screen size might be much bigger, but to say you can't see the differences at smaller sizes, and closer viewing differences is just not correct. You can observe the difference between SD and HD on a 13" screen at 2-3 metres away, (with, of course, a Grade 1 monitor, which perhaps isn't a fair comparison, as they're a whole lot more expensive than your normal domestic TV). Of course, it also relies to some extent on your eyesight being used to doing this kind of thing every day, looking for tiny colour and detail differences.
The big issue with all this resolution stuff is compression. Everything you see at home is compressed, so you get artefacts all over everything. Some content is worse than others, Satellite/Cable/Freeview is worse than Blueray for instance, as it's compressed to a much higher degree. With uncompressed video, you can see subtle differences in sharpness of different camera lens makes, which you'd probably never pick up on your incoming TV feed.
Don,t be fooled.
Try watching the tv and moving your head 12" to the right or the left and you lose the 3D and are left with a blurred picture for your £7k. The viewing angle is tiny. 3 people could not watch it at the same time unless you were sitting on top of each other.
Stick to a Panny VT or GT and save the £6k.
Try watching the tv and moving your head 12" to the right or the left and you lose the 3D and are left with a blurred picture for your £7k. The viewing angle is tiny. 3 people could not watch it at the same time unless you were sitting on top of each other.
Stick to a Panny VT or GT and save the £6k.
natben said:
Don,t be fooled.
Try watching the tv and moving your head 12" to the right or the left and you lose the 3D and are left with a blurred picture for your £7k. The viewing angle is tiny. 3 people could not watch it at the same time unless you were sitting on top of each other.
Stick to a Panny VT or GT and save the £6k.
Absolutely - As I said earlier they rely on this "sweet spot" for viewing best quality.......Try watching the tv and moving your head 12" to the right or the left and you lose the 3D and are left with a blurred picture for your £7k. The viewing angle is tiny. 3 people could not watch it at the same time unless you were sitting on top of each other.
Stick to a Panny VT or GT and save the £6k.
For a first 'cut' this is fantastic news. Give it a few years of revisions/innovation and this technology might become good enough to watch TV in 3D without glasses or having to worry about viewing angles. I am not sure if 3D will actually become the norm - like colour or HD TV, but lets wait and see if it does. It's the eye's natural way of looking at things so it seems a bit odd that we'd prefer 2D TV over 3D.
s1962a said:
It's the eye's natural way of looking at things so it seems a bit odd that we'd prefer 2D TV over 3D.
Absolutely!!!Everytime I go to a comet/currys/Lakes and look at the TVs I wonder this myself - 3D just seems a bit wierd. I feel I see and understand perspective on the 2D TV but that I lose some of it when looking at 3D but this is totally illogical!!!
It will completely change how TV and film is created, from a story point of view. A lot of the 'story telling' is done by different camera shots, camera movements, focus points, de-focussing, zooming, etc etc. All of that will not be possible if we ever get holographic projection sorted, so a lot of the 'art' that goes into a movie will disappear.
Whether it'll be better or worse for that I don't know. It will be interesting though.
Whether it'll be better or worse for that I don't know. It will be interesting though.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yes, it'd be interesting (well, I mean from a technical point of view, I'm not a sports fan). I suspect it'd have to be shot with a bunch of locked off cameras, plus loads of interpolation to get the angle you want. However, that would mean an end to close ups, although I reckon replays should still be ok. I wonder how big the hologram would need to be to get the best out of it.I imagine the, erm, slightly less 'mainstream' video industry could do well out of it.
Super Slo Mo said:
Yes, it'd be interesting (well, I mean from a technical point of view, I'm not a sports fan). I suspect it'd have to be shot with a bunch of locked off cameras, plus loads of interpolation to get the angle you want. However, that would mean an end to close ups, although I reckon replays should still be ok. I wonder how big the hologram would need to be to get the best out of it.
I imagine the, erm, slightly less 'mainstream' video industry could do well out of it.
Yes, I know what you mean. Gardener's World will never be the same again!I imagine the, erm, slightly less 'mainstream' video industry could do well out of it.
OllieC said:
3d in its current form glasses or no is a pointless gimmick for me.
Absolutely agree. It's fun going to watch a 3d film the cinema now and again as it's only a couple of hours, the equipment is usually top notch and the 3d just works better on a big screen, however as a home setup it fails.Prolonged usage gives eye strain\headaches and the 3d effect isn't actually that great. I just bought a recent TV and despite the salesmen trying to tell me that 3D was the future I bought a non 3D TV. If it matures\improves in the next 3-4 years then I'll go and get one but as of now I am not the least bit convinced.
davepoth said:
I doubt it will actually get rid of the movies as we know them. Paintings didn't disappear because someone invented sculpture. The two will eventually co-exist I should think, with 3D being very good for certain things.
I"m not sure your analogy works, but I get what you're saying. You're assuming paintings existed before sculpture, I'm not so sure that's true.Talking to a number of people in the industry recently, the general feeling is that 3D in TV terms will remain a niche, the big players seems not to be pushing it as hard as they were before, and there certainly seems to be less enthusiasm about it than there was. It's not taken off anywhere near as quickly as HD did, although it's not going to go away any time soon.
Of course it's a niche. Not everyone has 20/20 vision. Anyone who has impaired vision is immediately left out in the cold.
Want to go to the cinema with friends but they want to see a 3D movie? Sure, you can still wear the glasses and watch in 2D but you're going to be paying extra for something you won't even benefit from!
Want to go to the cinema with friends but they want to see a 3D movie? Sure, you can still wear the glasses and watch in 2D but you're going to be paying extra for something you won't even benefit from!
Super Slo Mo said:
...Talking to a number of people in the industry recently, the general feeling is that 3D in TV terms will remain a niche, the big players seems not to be pushing it as hard as they were before, and there certainly seems to be less enthusiasm about it than there was. It's not taken off anywhere near as quickly as HD did, although it's not going to go away any time soon.
Oakey said:
Of course it's a niche. Not everyone has 20/20 vision. Anyone who has impaired vision is immediately left out in the cold.
When looking at this, you need to stand back and look at the historical viewpoint. I did a paper about this as part of my degree - here's my take:From conception, cinema (and later TV) has all been about capturing and reproducing reality in the way most akin to 'being there'.
All of the major developments, including moving from silent film, and black and white film met with some friction from critics and filmmakers who felt that their art was being eroded, and still of course you will get black and white and silent film today for artistic reasons. Also, there is the time lag for the technology to come through in both production (the filmmakers) and consumption (the cinemas/your TV).
This always has a 'catch 22' position. Without the filmmakers there is no software, and without the hardware, there is no demand for the software. But, over time it gets there.
Oakey, I hear what you are saying, but, dispassionately, the industry will always go with the mass market, and the mass market can see in 3D. Silent cinema (or mono sound, or stereo sound, or most recently Dolby Digital and DTS) did not prevail because some of us are hard of hearing, nor did black and white prevail because some of us not see well or be colour blind.
Super Slo Mo - interesting that you have heard that some people believe that take-up is slow. IMHO that effect is that we are so used to things moving at light speed we forget how long it takes for technology to come in and tastes to change. For example:
How many years was it between the first film with sound, and most films to have sound? I believe ten to fifteen years.
How many years was it between the first film in colour to most films being in colour? Around ten years too.
And the first colour TV, to most people having colour TVs? At least ten years.
Surround sound in film to being in the home? HD screens being available (I have a 2001 relic) to most people demanding HD? You get the point. Ten years mostly.
To put 3D into perspective (and I mean todays 3D not any old tech with coloured glasses), I remember watching Avatar and being blown away in December 2009. I genuinely thought that home technology was 5 years away. I had a 3DTV and was watching content 18 months later. I don't believe glasses are the way forward, and I am secondly blown away by the fact that within 2 1/2 years of the cinema showing the first 3D film, you can see it at home without glasses.
In perspective, that is very, very fast. Especially considering that the jump from 2D to 3D is arguably the most radical advance in reproduction since the industry started.
So IMHO, 3D is an inevitability, for the masses, too. It's not an if, but a when.
How? IMHO, it will be when 3D becomes a default. Widescreen just became a default, HD is becoming a default. Some TVs now are 3D capable, you just buy glasses. In the end, most TVs will be 3D by default, without glasses, when you play 3D content. And at that point, producers will produce in it by default so as not to be left behind those that do.
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff