Philips introducing 52-inch 1080p 3D display
By Darren Murph 
posted Jun 5th 2008 11:57AM
posted Jun 5th 2008 11:57AM
[Via SlashGear]
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
Holy crap! It's got, like, a helicopter flying RIGHT OUT OF IT!!! That is REALLY freaking me out!
imagine if it was a cow jumping out!
HOLY COW! (reminds me a certain southpark episode :D)
when all is all said and done......I will be rich if that ever happen (a flying copter)...
How are these things going to work? is it going to be like Imax?
Yep,
You'll need glasses and all.
The big I don't like about 3d is all the cheesy movies, games, and tv shows that will use it.
Because something is in 3d they'll just keep throwing stuff at you versus giving you an actual cool experience.
Nope,
You won't need glasses at all.
Well, unless you have problems with your eyesight, of course.
You will have to view it from a certain angle, though, otherwise you don't see the picture. I think that's one of the things they've been trying to improve.
Anamorphosis FTW!!!!
I will like to just sit in the middle of my couch without the need to sit at a particular predefined angle just to get the glimpse of the 3D ....... how about hyperplane ? i guess we'll need a floating chair to the the hyperplane direction huh?
i can't wait for all the extremely awful network shows that try to incorporate this into their program. ryan seacrest midgeting into your living room anyone?
This screen works dividing all pixels in 4 parts.
Each part shows an angle to do this 3D effect for our eyes
(sorry for my english)...
They've been trying to sell 3D for 25 years. It has never taken off. I doubt it will now. For some reason consumers just aren't interested in it at all.
actually the 3D movies have been doing very well, doing 2x the traffic of none 3D showings.
"For some reason consumers just aren't interested in it at all."
because so far it sucks...
the only 3d technology that has been possible for home use for the past 25 years is the 3d that involves whereeing blue/red glasses and the reason it didnt catch on is because that type of 3d sucks... Its completly terrible..
this new technology requires glasses that are polarized so that you see a different image in each eye making it actual 3d. You wouldnt be able to release this technology any earlier from now because only technology that is available today can allow you to have this inside your home.
Forgive me if this is super-noob, but what format will deliver 3d image data to the TV?
its the tv that makes it 3d (in other words you cant watch 3dtv unless you have the tv for it and also the programming), it will be broadcasted over the same network as the rest of tv, cable, satellite, internet, etc
@ Oniquer
that was an awesome episode
i say they should have a 4D TV that takes us anywhere in the universe through saace-time
Come on Fognl, dont cancel earth yet! Now we can visit you!( another South Park episode that was great)
I will only buy a 3DTV if its as reliable as Sammy 2D TVs
so i would only buy a Sammy H3DTV
I could market that!
I'm pretty sure I saw something very similar to this at JavaOne (though it may have been a 42 incher). Everyone would walk buy and go, wow, that's pretty cool, then after about 5 seconds of staring at it, your eyes just hurt like crazy. This technology just isn't there yet. Somehow they have to come up with something that will be as easy on the eyes as watching standard television.
Is the TV on skis? They have to come up with a more attractive stand.
Hahaha... the helicopter is going to get me! We've come a long way since 3 d holographic imagery (link to ebooks and audiobooks version)... are we going to have to wear 3d glasses to make this work?
Well, I found this technology on Wikipedia, and apparently the system is made to work with existiWell, I found this technology on Wikipedia, and apparently the system is made to work with existing 2d technologies... except that the way it does so is to make every other frame a grayscale depth map. Can you imagine watching something encoded in 3d on a 2d display? The color flickering on and off?ng 2d technologies... except that the way it does so is to make every other frame a grayscale depth map. Can you imagine watching something encoded in 3d on a 2d display? The color flickering on and off?
Dunno about the negative comments. Watched Beowolf in 3D and it was a fantastic film. Also read somewhere that 3D versions of films, like Polar Express, did around 400 percent more business in 3D theaters vs. regular.
I think most early 3D used it as a gimmick, and not as a way to enhance the story or its presentation. Thus its lukewarm reception. Real-time events shot in 3D, such as sports or 3D video games will no doubt drive the technology.
As for those posting about watching crap reality shows in 3D - I'm surprised posters/readers of this blog watch TV. Other than the occasional Family Guy or Penguin game (DAMN!), I don't. I have my precious internet.
Who watches TV? Dullards and oldsters. I'd rather dryhump a cactus than watch the choreographed drivel vomited across the TV every night, but hey, maybe I'm just a snob, you're right, and 'God is in the TV.'
Who watches TV? I do. I have like hundred of movies and I would love to see what it all look like in 3D on my TV.
3D might be a gimmick but I bet you alot more people will watches TV if 3D become more available. I know I would.
though I agree that Beowulf in 3D was really awesome. Watching a movie in Imax (which is specifically created to be used with special classes) is a completely different experience than what this TV would be offering. The 3D experience is not media dependent. It will show everything as 3D, but hurt your eyes like crazy in the process.
Put me down for dry-humping a cactus as superior alternative to watching TV. Well put.
agreed on the cactus thing... I never would have thought to put it that way lol
I would buy one of these if there was more content to support it. It would be like buying a 1440p television and watching blu-rays on it. Pointless.
Errr, as far as I know there is a specific format that needs to be present in order to see the 3d effect. Dont remember the extention though, but it devided the pictures in 2 seperate video images, one video stream would output regular color images, and the other video stream would output gray height maps for the colored video stream.
A specific WOW-Media player would handle these images and show 'm in the correct way, if you opened the file in WMP for example you'd just see both video streams next to eachother. The WOW-Media player was quite cool though, you could even adjust the WOW-Factor (As in how much depth you would want in your 3d Image.. Ah yes... Memories.. Cool stuff, cant wait to see more of them pop-up!
My longest post evah !!!
Take that iMax!
the only 3d technology that has been possible for home use for the past 25 years is the 3d that involves whereeing blue/red glasses and the reason it didnt catch on is because that type of 3d sucks... Its completly terrible..
this new technology requires glasses that are polarized so that you see a different image in each eye making it actual 3d. You wouldnt be able to release this technology any earlier from now because only technology that is available today can allow you to have this inside your home.
@ruderitalin: You DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT, require glasses to view the 3D effect, you just watch it in 3D, this LCD display projects different images at once, tricking your brain into it's watching something with depth.
Quite interesting, and it certainly does have a "wow" factor. I just saw one (42 incher) at the mall yesterday and it was quite impressive. No, it wasn't for sale, but it retails at around 15K USD from what I've heard.
clearly what this needs, is 3d porn lol;)