Maybe I expressed myself wrong and thought too much of the long time it will take for things to adapt, content to be created and before the masses get interested (things like that take time..)
Alot of people have just purchased HD screens and may not switch to a new one soon.
That said, all is very dependant on content. Broadcast the top sports and hopefully the upcoming Hollywood movies in 3D on a dedicated channel and people may get interested. The 3D functionality of a screen should also be used to set it apart from competitors instead of a way to increase screen cost.
For 3D in general, Samsung and Mitsubishi screens at Wal-Mart (?) showing the 3D channel featuring immersive sports and movies... may finally incite the interest 3D definately deserves.
I see ALOT of potential and a future full of 3D.. Now 3D in general would benefit from the coverage Samsung and Mitsubishi are able to get.
Besides, usually people sit quite far away from their TV sets, reducing 3D effects (like immersion and pop out)
I think it's the opposite for pop out. From what I've seen with my S-3D passive dual projection system, the farther you sit from the screen, the farther from the screen the picture pops out toward you.
Well, not really. Relative to you the pop out will be the same, if it was at 50% between you and the screen, it will stay that way. So it may come further out of the screen yes, but not be closer to you. The downside to that, is that your viewing cone when viewing a TV set is quite small (well besides the very few that have the biggest TV sets). So yes pop out would become far out of the screen but in effect oddly distorting the image. It would be way more perfect to have a big viewing cone before pop out becomes huge (ALOT less edge problems too).. A 3D cinema would have this effect..
Then still the effect may be very cool ofcourse, just saying that there is a strong interdependance between alot of things that may not be perfect. (A function in the 3D screen to adjust convergence would be cute to balance these things a bit perhaps)
The Mitsubishi products are promising. We need solutions that don't compromise the quality of the picture. That's what mitsubishi is proposing if you compare to a pc using shutter glasses and a CRT monitor.
It's a step in the right direction but I still feel like it's not a perfect solution because it requires powered glasses and because of the loss of brightness. It's annoying to have a wire coming out of wired glasses and it's annoying to have to replace batteries in unwired glasses. Correct me if I'm wrong (anyone) but I think that the brightness of a DLP TV can be higher than a the brightness of CRT monitor so the brightness should be fine with shutterglasses.
In my view still the polarised glasses are the best. I imagine a IZ3D style of producing a polarised viewing experience. Yes the other ways are easier to implement with just slight increased costs, but the IZ3D type of way would allow us to just wear thin, light, trendy glasses. Instead of bulkier things.
?and unlike polarized lenses they do not cause eye strain and headaches, which is what most people complain about with red/green glasses,? Naranjo said.
Is it true that polarized lenses cause eyestrain? I have some doubts about that. Does anyone has any source to prove or refute that?
No clue what that's about. They are also oddly comparing polarised with red/green. Quite the difference. I don't know why polarised would give more eye strain and headaches.. My guess is that that is just untrue.