Samsung Claims First 240Hz 3D HDTVs

Status
Not open for further replies.

doc70

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2009
186
0
18,630
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.
 

logitic

Distinguished
Oct 27, 2009
58
0
18,580
[citation][nom]coonday[/nom]Those are some good 3d TV's! That girl literally looks like she's sitting in the show room.[/citation]

ok that one made me LOL!
 

Pei-chen

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2007
595
0
18,930
Samsung is not only producing thin TVs, they are also producing thin booth babes.

BTW, I don’t care for 3D TVs simply because I already wear glasses on daily basis.
 

avericia

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2009
7
0
18,510
pei-chen
"BTW, I don’t care for 3D TVs simply because I already wear glasses on daily basis"

I wear glasses for driving or riding and when i saw avatar in 3d i had wear glasses double stacked. Uncomfortable for sure, but it looked amazing :p

Ya i agree though until i can afford to get laser eye sergery or 3d vision comes without glasses i'm out of luck too.
 

bison88

Distinguished
May 24, 2009
249
0
18,830
Yeah hate to break it to you television makers but 3D didn't work 40 years ago when it was introduced and it wont work now, people just don't want it even with modern style glasses. Not only does it cause up to 50% of people watching it headaches and nausea but its not a feature I care about or will make me run out and buy a new TV. Now if they can manage to make it work without the glasses like some said, hell yeah I would jump aboard. I don't think 95% of the people buying TV's are going to say "Hell yeah I want to upgrade to 3D!"

I mean its still cool for what it's worth but I think investors are not going to make there returns on this one.
 

amdchuck

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2001
127
0
18,660
I don't know why everyone insists this won't work. It seems to me that modern displays and media sources are so technically advanced that supporting 3-D content will eventually just be another bullet point feature on the sales sheet. Even if you only use the 3-D part for gaming (whoa) or watching sports (again, whoa), people are going to enjoy that, glasses or no glasses.....wow, now I cant stop thinking about how a FPS would play in 3-D....
 

acecombat

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2009
94
0
18,580
[citation][nom]amdchuck[/nom] now I cant stop thinking about how a FPS would play in 3-D....[/citation]
Exceptionally :)
I had 3D shutter glasses about 4-5 years back with my old CRT. They only worked with nVidia cards but the depth added a new level of awesomeness to existing games (It was compatible with 80% of the games as it just used a modified DirectX driver)!
 
G

Guest

Guest
Um.. these are new gen 3D glasses. They are just polarized on one side. Not expensive. Not rare. Yes cheap.
 

matt87_50

Distinguished
Mar 23, 2009
599
0
18,930
this is confusing, as active 3d effectively halves the refresh rate, are they saying its 480 for 2d and 240 for 3d? or 240 for 2d and 120 for 3d?

either way, 120 is enough...

the cool thing about the active 3D is it effectively does the dark frame insertion as a perk (cause the glasses have to block off the eye not meant to be viewing the other eye's image). this is something that they have actively added to tv's in order to increase motion awesome and falsely quote double refresh rate.

I would imagine that this active 3d is quite a bit better than the 3d at the movies...
 

vulcan900

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2010
5
0
18,510
So to watch Avatar in 3D at home I need:

Let's give an approximation:
3D HDTV @ 120/240Hz: $3000
Active 3D Glasses: $250
3D Blu-Ray Player: $300
Blu-Ray 3D Disc (Avatar): $50
Total : $3600

Nope, No 3D for the time being.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.