Samsung Claims First 240Hz 3D HDTVs

[invlem]

Active glasses are silly, going to end up paying $400 on-top of the TV cost just to allow everyone in the room to see the content in 3D.

Seriously if you want people to adopt 3D use passive tech and ease them into it with a price point that won't break the bank. Just look at how long blu-ray adoption is taking... Why? Maybe because up until this winter, blu-ray players have been ridiculously overpriced.

 

[Nexus52085]

[citation][nom]sceen311[/nom]I wonder how long till they lose the glasses?[/citation]
Lol read up on 3D tech before you post something like this. You can't see 3D video without the glasses.

 

[Nexus52085]

[citation][nom]vulcan900[/nom]So to watch Avatar in 3D at home I need:Let's give an approximation:3D HDTV @ 120/240Hz: $3000Active 3D Glasses: $2503D Blu-Ray Player: $300Blu-Ray 3D Disc (Avatar): $50Total : $3600Nope, No 3D for the time being.[/citation]
You can buy a 60" mitsubishi DLP TV that's 3D ready for $1099. So, let's say $1700 instead of $3600 there, buddy.

 

[Guest]

@Nexus52085 You can, but because it is Checkerboard format it will cut the resolution in half. The other TVs will not do so (they are full HD in 3D). Also, @vulcan900. They have already said that the 3D will add a $200 premium on to the cost (at the most) for the TV. After that, the blu ray players are expected to add $50 - $100 over the cost of a standard blu ray player. The movies will be about $30. Total Cost: TV (Depends on what type) LED 50 inch (~$2500), LCD/Plasma 50 inch (~$1600), and OLED (~$25,000? LOL. Forget OLED for now)! Therefore, let's figure with an LED a total of ~$2,800.

 

[pocketdrummer]

[citation][nom]victomofreality[/nom]it's in 2d.[/citation]

Not bad considering most 1080p TVs only do 60hz. 240hz/2 is still twice that of most TVs. Nice...

But, it'll probably cost you your lefty....... :_(

 

[anamaniac]

How about 4k resolution too?

240Hz 4K resolution... guess we need HDMI 1.4 or even 1.5 already to do it with one cable only...

 

[fooldog01]

[citation][nom]Nexus52085[/nom]Lol read up on 3D tech before you post something like this. You can't see 3D video without the glasses.[/citation]

Maybe you should take your own advice.

http/www.markstechnologynews.com/2008/05/phillips-presents-3d-tv-without-glasses.html

 

[Guest]

"20 percent increase"? I wonder if he/she meant 20 percent decrease in response time?

 

[sliem]

It's ***NOT 3D*** if it still needs glasses. Stop calling it THREE DEE!

 

[blackened144]

Is the "True 240" a marketing thing or is the TV an actual 240Hz panel? I have a "120Hz" LCD tv, but the 120Hz it all software, its not a true 120Hz LCD panel.

 

[HavoCnMe]

Just give me the hologram chess board from Star Wars. And ill figure away to hookup HDMI to it.

 

[necronic]

Isn't the limit for the human eye like 75 hz? For 3D I could see how that is different, but for 2D what difference does it make if its 80 or 1000 hz

 

[Nexus52085]

[citation][nom]winlonghorn10[/nom]@Nexus52085 You can, but because it is Checkerboard format it will cut the resolution in half. The other TVs will not do so (they are full HD in 3D). Also, @vulcan900. They have already said that the 3D will add a $200 premium on to the cost (at the most) for the TV. After that, the blu ray players are expected to add $50 - $100 over the cost of a standard blu ray player. The movies will be about $30. Total Cost: TV (Depends on what type) LED 50 inch (~$2500), LCD/Plasma 50 inch (~$1600), and OLED (~$25,000? LOL. Forget OLED for now)! Therefore, let's figure with an LED a total of ~$2,800.[/citation]
Ahhh Thanks for clarifying!

 

[Nexus52085]

[citation][nom]doc70[/nom]So, if you have friends over for a movie, they should bring their own pair(s) of 3D glasses, or what? Tough luck?That is the reason this technology is not catching up with the masses; we need different 3D rendering OR cheap-as-dirt current tech/accessories. Until then, it will be just a curiosity at expos around the world.[/citation]
The only other way to do is 3D holographic displays. Somehow I doubt that would be cheaper, though. lol

 

[BoxBabaX]

How about some 1600p resolution

 

[d4rkpow3r]

wow i cant believe how so many ppl dont like the 3d stuff, tbh i been gaming in 3d with nvidia 3d vision for a while now and i would NEVER go back down, 2d is just so .... ewww, if you really try it and get into it, its totally worth it, but then again if you are a cheapcake and have no money, well tough luck! just don't stop evolution for the rest of us.

 

[Nexus52085]

[citation][nom]fooldog01[/nom]Maybe you should take your own advice.http/www.markstechnologynews.com [...] asses.html[/citation]
Nice addition to your html code, I don't google stuff to prove other people wrong. It's like using wikipedia for an essay. However, if you're going to do so, I'd suggest making sure the rebuttal to your argument isn't found on the very website of which you've posted your statement.

http/www.tomshardware.com/news/philips-3d-lcd-display,7550.html

 

[Nexus52085]

Sorry. URL*

 

[chuckles333]

blackened144 i was wondering that too "Is the "True 240" a marketing thing or is the TV an actual 240Hz panel?" I think i read somewhere the current dual link dvi (and hdmi, i think) cables could not support 1080 resolution at 120hz so 240hz would be out of the question. If anybody has any info on this it would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Guest]

Nexus52085:

The WOWvx autostereoscopic displays used poor, incompetent technology.

However, there are OTHER autostereoscopic displays that are good. For example, have you heard of the upcoming Nintendo 3DS?

That technology can also be applied to larger screens.