Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Panasonic 3D TV Does Not Disappoint 143

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the do-it-without-the-glasses dept.
Engadget recently had a chance to try out Panasonic's 3D demo rig, and, aside from the goofy glasses, report some impressive results. "Active shutter 3D technology once again did not fail to impress, though large format action content like the Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony and action sports footage was far more impressive than the movie trailer. The benefit of a picture where everything, regardless of distance from the camera, is in focus is one of the biggest benefits 3D has going for it and nothing makes that more apparent than video from a large stadium. Aside from a few glitches from a pair of the glasses being low on battery and flickering annoyingly throughout, the framerate was smooth and the picture sharp, a marked difference from the jittery motion we witnessed during JVC's 3D demo earlier in the day."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Panasonic 3D TV Does Not Disappoint

Comments Filter:
  • Re:3D (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Yvan256 (722131) on Friday September 11, 2009 @04:36PM (#29393417) Homepage Journal

    You wouldn't happen to have a Final Fantasy XI account by any chance?

    If you do, have you tried nVidia 3D Vision with it?

  • by rotide (1015173) on Friday September 11, 2009 @04:37PM (#29393429)
    Having to wear special glasses, especially ones that need batteries or cords is just a deal breaker for me.

    It's a novelty item and maybe an impressive one at that. But if you're going to sit down and watch a few tv shows or a movie or two, do you really want to have to find your 3D glasses and some batteries first?

    I'm thinking not having to deal with the hassle will trump the initial "fun" factor of having "3D" television.

  • by mcgrew (92797) * on Friday September 11, 2009 @04:39PM (#29393439) Homepage Journal

    How would you propose changing a chemical polarizer and what manufacturing process would you suggest to built such a beast?

    I'm not really sure, to be honest. But it seems not to be impossible. Actually what I'd really like is a holographic TV. We studied holograms in a general studies physics course I took back in the late '70s, and thats REAL 3D.

  • by biryokumaru (822262) * <biryokumaru@gmail.com> on Friday September 11, 2009 @04:45PM (#29393509)
    I've seen both polarized films and shutter glasses, and they are not the same. You might as well be watching Creature from the Black Lagoon [wikipedia.org] even with modern films. Additionally, without expensive projection equipment, the polarized technique is virtually impossible. It is no where near home ready, whereas the shutter glasses most definitely are.
  • Re:3D (Score:1, Interesting)

    by jayme0227 (1558821) on Friday September 11, 2009 @04:46PM (#29393511) Journal

    See, it's not the fact that you're against social engineering that makes you a racist. It's the fact that you chose to use this forum to attempt to display your hatred for social engineering. It's the fact that you chose to talk about race in your out-of-place hatred of social engineering. It's the fact that, instead of talking about 3D technology, you're stuck talking about how you're not a racist. Just face it. You're a racist. Most of us are, especially those of us who come from small towns where racial integration is basically nonexistant. When I think back to my time in elementary and high school and can think of the one black kid in any of my classes, you'll understand if I unintentionally treat people of different races differently, even if it's because I'm trying so hard not to.

    Instead of trying so hard to deny that you're racist, you can be like me and try to fix it. Then you can talk about cool new 3D technology and how amazing it is.

    PS. I just graduated high school 6 years ago. I'm not thinking back to the 60's, just to the earlier part of this decade. Also, I wasted mod points to post this response and fully expect to be rated down as off-topic. I just feel that it is that important to respond.

  • by Facegarden (967477) on Friday September 11, 2009 @05:13PM (#29393785)

    During the last 30 years, the brands possessing the most value (for the money) for the typical customer has changed dramatically. In 1979, heaven for the consumer was Sony audio and visual appliances and Honda cars. Now, heaven for the consumer is Panasonic audio and visual appliances and Toyota cars.

    30 years from now, what will be heaven for the consumer?

    Maybe Daewoo? They make cars and microwaves and forklifts and assault rifles, that's all you could ever want!
    -Taylor

  • Face tracking (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Idiomatick (976696) on Friday September 11, 2009 @05:35PM (#29393981)
    Face tracking is the future of 3d tvs not funny glasses. People are vain it will never become mainstream. I am aware they are different things... to a degree.

    Comparatively face tracking has many advantages.

    1. The tech can be used and worked on RIGHT NOW. Most laptops sold these days come with a webcam. Using this you can have full 3d applications right now. Having a preinstalled base of millions clearly helps.

    2. Headtracking can be used in games and applications to allow you to interact with the environment. And to have 3d as good as an object in front of you. You can use it to work like a window rather than a pane, moving forwards gives you a wider field of vision, moving to the left allows you to see more to the right and so on. Recorded 3d clearly won't allow you to change where you are viewing.

    3. Most importantly it makes it so you don't have to wear stupid looking glasses. This is the main problem and it will kill panasonic's 3d tv.

    4. Utility, Having a camera on your tv is way more useful and flexible than silly glasses.

    The downside of course is that this doesn't provide 3d as in depth it provides 3d as in view. This can be fixed by having a mechanism for the tv that allows it to have auto-stereoscopy (This tech exists of course). This will be limited likely to a few viewers at first and improve.
  • by spun (1352) <{moc.oohay} {ta} {yranoituloverevol}> on Friday September 11, 2009 @05:38PM (#29394001) Journal

    Your argument is invalid because I lost my left eye in a game of lawn darts. QED. What the hell is this about, anyway? Could someone summarize it for me? You see, due to my injury, I can only read in 2D. I promise not to mod you down, or to chortle diabolically.

  • by rabtech (223758) on Friday September 11, 2009 @05:53PM (#29394113) Homepage

    Actually with DLP it isn't that hard to do the wavelength filtering that some modern cinema 3D systems are using, where the RGB components are projected twice, each with a slightly different wavelength of red, green, and blue light. Filters on either side of the glasses only let the "correct" wavelengths through. Supposedly it is a very natural-looking process, since you don't get the flickering or odd polarization effects. Oddly enough this would be easier to do with a single-chip DLP system than a three-chip system because you can split the color wheel up using the correct filters.

  • by Princeofcups (150855) <john@princeofcups.com> on Friday September 11, 2009 @05:55PM (#29394123) Homepage

    Plus, I already wear a silly headset when playing Xbox. You could pretty much put my head in a fishbowl if that made anything cooler, I'm not trying to impress anyone in my living room.
    -Taylor

    Girls in glasses are hot. I don't know where the idea that glasses make you ugly comes from. Maybe the contact lens manufacturers.

  • by jayme0227 (1558821) on Friday September 11, 2009 @06:09PM (#29394235) Journal

    I'm just waiting for the 3d glasses that work well with my current glasses. That's what sucks about the current technology. If you have glasses, you're forced to awkwardly place a second pair of glasses in front of your current pair. So instead of *just* the typical headaches and other complaints, you also have to deal with a smaller field of vision to look through and constant rubbing on your lower nose. On top of that, the "coolness" of the 3d effect is lost after about 8 seconds into the movie or show, except for the 1-2 times in which something is being thrown at the camera, but you're forced to wear the stupid glasses for the rest of the two hour movie.

  • by istartedi (132515) on Friday September 11, 2009 @06:27PM (#29394359) Journal

    Wait for a holographic display. Yeah, we're nowhere near being able to achieve it now. You'd need (horiz)(height) the bandwidth although compression should help a lot. You'd need a way to have a microscopic projector in each pixel, projecting a complete image.

    Upside: No glasses. Your TV would literally look like a window into another world.

    Downside: Scads of energy to throw enough light from each microprojector, horrendous bandwidth requirement.

    Maybe the horrendous bandwidth requirement isn't a downside--it's the problem looking for the solutions that involve shoving 20 Libraries of Congress through a fiber every second.

    Anyway, give me a call when these holographic window displays are available.

  • by DanielRavenNest (107550) on Friday September 11, 2009 @07:28PM (#29394737)

    Anyone here think that will not be a major selling point?

    (and dont forget the wireless sex toys)

  • by chenjeru (916013) on Friday September 11, 2009 @08:42PM (#29395073)

    Not true. I've just been to the IBC in Amsterdam and the place is chock-full of 3D tech, including screens using autostereoscopic (no glasses needed), polarized and shutter glasses. They are all coming off some flavor of LCD/plasma. Many of the polarized screens were made by Hyundai.

    The main reason that we will see shutter glasses in the home (unfortunately, IMHO) is that you can easily use the same screen for both 3D and non-3D viewing - it's just alternating full-resolution frames. The polarized and autostereoscopic screens both have noticable pixel distortion or reduced resolution when viewed as 'normal' screens. Since the retailers will have to sell you a 'normal' HD screen that ALSO does 3D, the shutter glasses will almost certainly win in the near-term consumer market.

  • by DoktorSeven (628331) on Friday September 11, 2009 @08:46PM (#29395081) Homepage Journal

    As someone that is extremely left-eye dominant, 3d does not work for me. Period. I always wondered what the big deal about ViewMasters were when I was a kid, not realizing the things should be 3d (I saw them as two images of the same thing, well, one adjusted for the 3d effect everyone else was getting). If TV, movies and everything else starts following this the way everyone followed HD to screens that weren't compatible with my eyes either (any motion makes me sick, as I see horrible tearing and delays with LCD and plasma displays, even ones that are apparently the highest quality), I'm going to have to give up watching anything new.

Any program which runs right is obsolete.

Working...