LG's $10K Full HD 3D Projector Ships Soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
Looks like this will be a toy for the rich.

Other than that, the only other places that will probably have a use for this model will be iMax theaters and maybe a few contemporary art museums.
 

eklipz330

Distinguished
Jul 7, 2008
750
0
18,930
0
Well i just bought myself a yacht and a Lamborghini Reventon, this will definitely be a nice new toy for the IMAX theater I'm about to build.
 

invlem

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2008
265
0
18,930
0
I just hope it uses polarized 3D, quite disappointed by all the new 3D TV's at CES, all use Shutterglasses, which means you're probably looking at $100-200 per pair of glasses for each individual who wants to watch something on your TV in 3D.

Not a very economical option (at least for the consumer) polarized 3D glasses cost less than $10 in comparison. There's also less points of failure on polarized 3D
 

burfordg

Distinguished
Mar 20, 2009
14
0
18,560
0
This is nowhere near the power of even the cheapest IMAX projector. (iMax, Renegade_Warrior? Seriously?) 2500 lumens isn't exactly bright, not compared to an IMAX projector (there's no way you could mount it, at, say, 50 feet from the screen and expect to get a sharp image). Then there's the fact that a standard movie theatre projector is usually around $25,000 at least (IMAX projectors cost even more). Also, IMAX projectors have a far higher resolution than 1080p.

Did I mention that an IMAX setup usually takes up a small room?

This is the kind of projector someone puts in their living rooom. It's small and (comparitively speaking), cheap. Nowhere near professional quality and not even worth considering for a real theatre.
 

burfordg

Distinguished
Mar 20, 2009
14
0
18,560
0
I just looked it up: A typical IMAX projector lamp puts out around 600,000 lumens; in other words, they are around 240x as powerful as the lamps in this projector. The lamps themselves cost around $6,000 each, weigh about 10 pounds, and are nearly 2 feet long.

In other words, the lamps themselves dwarf this projector. The only reason it's more expensive than a standard home-use projector is because it utilizes 3D. It's quite cheap.

Saying this projector is good for IMAX is like saying that your lawn mower engine can power a mining dump truck.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I dont know why everyone thinks that the active shutter glasses are going to be so expensive. The technology has been around for awhile, and of the last time I checked you could get 4 for $100.
 

waxdart

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
75
0
18,580
0
what's the refresh rate of a good hd projector these days? If you can get over 60 frames per eye then this is a bot over the top. just need some awful looks glasses to sync up and away you go.
 

Honis

Distinguished
Mar 16, 2009
383
0
18,930
0
Shutter glasses and polarized glasses aren't that bad. Yes, they are ugly now, but if the tech actually takes a hold in the market Oakley and other mainstream sunglasses manufacturers would be missing out on a huge market for bad ass looking pairs you can lose in your couch and crush (just like their sunglasses).
 
G

Guest

Guest
I know nothing about the tech - but I saw a 3D display - awesome!!!! I felt like it would be a perfect way to have real cinema in the house (if of course you have a little space for effect)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
eliaz188 Streaming Video & TVs 1
S Streaming Video & TVs 0
Carter Ebersole Streaming Video & TVs 1
R Streaming Video & TVs 4
blue_duck Streaming Video & TVs 6
E Streaming Video & TVs 0
B Streaming Video & TVs 1
Ratwood1619 Streaming Video & TVs 1
T Streaming Video & TVs 2
The Perfect Stranger Streaming Video & TVs 2
K Streaming Video & TVs 1
W Streaming Video & TVs 1
S Streaming Video & TVs 3
A Streaming Video & TVs 1
S Streaming Video & TVs 2
Lawlblue Streaming Video & TVs 3
ScorpiusCRO Streaming Video & TVs 0
M Streaming Video & TVs 1
V Streaming Video & TVs 7
TheDudeAdibes Streaming Video & TVs 4

ASK THE COMMUNITY