LG readies first 47LH50 3D LCD TV -- just 29,999,999 to go

LG is set to release its first 3D TV -- the 47-inch 47LH50 LCD -- into the Korean market next month. As our tech overlords, this could signal a trend that'll head west. In fact, LG estimates that the 3D television market will exceed 30 million units by 2012 -- exactly what we'd say too if we were in the business of selling televisions. Hmm, 30 million TVs multiplied by 4.5 pairs of glasses required for the average household -- guess we'll be investing in polarized lenses.

[Via @visitken]

[Erb @ Jun 18th 2009 6:18AM]

Hmmm 2012... Seems to be a reoccurring theme in items that will probably not meet their deadlines...

[Stephen @ Jun 18th 2009 6:20AM]

Too bad we won't get to use all this tech that's due for 2012 for very long :(

[Duke @ Jun 18th 2009 9:55AM]

Well, since there are all the theories saying the world will end in 2012, maybe these companies bet on nobody being around to get pissed if their 3D tv doesn't make it the day after armageddon.

[Erik @ Jun 18th 2009 6:22AM]

Actually that's pretty smart, anybody try to find out who makes those polarized galsses ?

[A.C.E.R. @ Jun 18th 2009 6:23AM]

China.

[Ali @ Jun 18th 2009 8:52AM]

Absolutely! This economy has hit me pretty hard and I'm looking for anyway to get back up. Who's with me?

[Paul @ Jun 18th 2009 6:24AM]

GIMMICK, Rubbish, pathetic who wants to wear 3d glasses to watch a TV COME back when you designed a 3D TV that you don’t have to wear glasses.

[kwikit (aka tikiwk) @ Jun 18th 2009 6:53AM]

Wholeheartedly agree.

[semicolin @ Jun 18th 2009 7:53AM]

I also agree.

[Templarian @ Jun 18th 2009 8:54AM]

3DFusion made one a while back.

[Duke @ Jun 18th 2009 9:57AM]

I have trouble believing people will want this as well. It seems 3D is really being pushed hard on consumers lately, though I don't know many people that actually care to have it.

[Tim Brown @ Jun 18th 2009 10:32AM]

It is useless for me, my left eye is a mess and I can hardly see out of it, any 3d tech for me has to be true 3d or else I cant make out the depth. All my depth perception comes from a lifetime of only having one eye and a wish not to walk into things, so stereo is useless and looks crap to me. bring on holograms.

[DaSpider @ Jun 19th 2009 2:39AM]

@ Tim Brown
That's actually a great idea, Tim! Why waste money on expensive 3D sets when you can just muck up one of your eyes? :P

[LordFarkward @ Jun 18th 2009 6:30AM]

I want to be that TV... lucky bastard

[Shinigami @ Jun 18th 2009 6:33AM]

30 million units by 2012? Are they SonyEricson who estimated they'd rule the planed by now with actual business falling apart?
1. OLED!
2. Who gives a damn about 3D tv anyways?

[John @ Jun 18th 2009 6:46AM]

I hate these kinds of screens.. they tend to give me a headache quickly. I really hope this tech doesnt catch on to the point of being as mandatory as HD. I'd rather have a projected hologram though...

[tom @ Jun 18th 2009 7:34AM]

3D pron

LOL !

[Chris D.(PSN: Aggie_CEO | XBL:The Aggie CEO | Steam: Aggie_CEO @ Jun 18th 2009 7:10AM]

are those the same lenses we get when watching 3D movies in theaters?? if so then I've got like 30 of those...lol

[Luc @ Jun 18th 2009 7:47AM]

Hope it doesn't screw up the image when the broadcast is not 3D.
But if I really wanted 3D, I'd go for a projector to get a better effect on a large image.

[VampireHunter Z @ Jun 18th 2009 9:00AM]

I don't think it's the same. I think you physically need 2 projecters to do RealD. If I remember correctly, RealD isn't splitting colors but actually using the two projecters to display 2 different images at once. If RealD hits home it will probably be in the form of a projection TV.

[Chris D.(PSN: Aggie_CEO | XBL:The Aggie CEO | Steam: Aggie_CEO @ Jun 18th 2009 9:05AM]

the main reason I was wondering was because they both appear to be the same polarized lenses....guess We'll just have to wait to see. One thing is certain, I wont be buying a 3D TV for at least another 3-5 years, lol

[AmyFan @ Jun 18th 2009 8:36AM]

I'm a little confused about the 3D TV technology right now... Is this the 3D TV that uses the same technology as Real D - you wear "passive" oppositely polarized glasses and the screen has a 144Hz refresh rate half of which you can only see with one eye and the other half with the other one, and if that's the technology why arent all 144Hz TVs 3D, is it really that hard to make them, there are a ton of 240Hz TVs out there too, so obviously it doesn't work with TVs the same way as it does with DLP projectors so if anyone knows why and what the difference is there, please tell me, what makes a TV 3D? Obviously there's probably more to 3D TV technology than just a 144Hz+ refresh rate, otherwise there'd be a ton of 3D-capable TVs out there.

Then there's nVidia's 3D technology which requires a 120Hz monitor (I guess 60Hz is still pretty smooth, though Real D uses 72), but they also use shutter glasses which I don't understand why they can't just use the regular Real D glasses - I have a feeling that 3D TV is more like this technology...

Can someone please enlighten me...?

[SDAlpha1510 @ Jun 18th 2009 10:24AM]

Learn to make new sentences and sloooow down. Thanks!

[dan2600 @ Jun 18th 2009 11:00AM]

if they put 3dTV in the name, they can charge more for it.

That's the difference.

[Barri @ Jun 18th 2009 8:55AM]

So what the difference between me watching a movie in 3d with the bundled glasses compaired to watching the same 3d movie on this 3dtv with Glasses? Makes no fucking sense to me. Aint the whole point of these displays so that you can have 3d without glasses?

[ghex88 @ Jun 18th 2009 9:11AM]

I have a nicer 3D for her to touch.

[Boom @ Jun 18th 2009 9:14AM]

Yeah but the TV is 46" bigger

[ghex88 @ Jun 18th 2009 9:16AM]

It is nicer not bigger :)

[Ranger Rick @ Jun 18th 2009 9:19AM]

3-D TV is coming, no doubt. But glasses still fail and I don't see TVs that require glasses being as commonplace as HDTVs are now. 3-D with no glasses will probably be in most (American) houses sometime around or a couple years before 2020.

[Darwin @ Jun 18th 2009 9:29AM]

Did she just remove the mustache portion of that Groucho kit or is her nose really THAT big?

[AmyFan @ Jun 18th 2009 9:30AM]

3D TV without glasses is only possible with a radically different technology like holograms or some insane thing that only exists in science fiction at this point which would actually allow you to see different sides of an object as you look at it from different angles, or real 3D, but that's probably generations away, the 3D that we have now is "flat" 3D, but still quite awesome.

Anyways, what I meant to say is that the only way we can have the 3D effect coming from a flat surface like a screen is by having your eyes see different images and that can only be accomplished with glasses...

What I don't understand, again, is why we don't have 3D Blu-Ray or DVDs yet that can play on our currently existing 120+Hz TVs and monitors that we can watch with our Real D glasses, all the technology is there, the TVs and/or DVD/Blu-Ray players will need a firmware upgrade and the DVD/Blu-Rays will have a halved video capacity due to the double frame rate but you can still fit a movie on it...

[Matt @ Jun 18th 2009 9:33AM]

Nonsense. Do they really think people will buy into a 3D set that requires an extra set of glasses per viewer? Did they not even ask anyone who wears glasses how they feel about wearing a set of polarized glasses over normal corrective lenses?

It's uncomfortable at best and the effect is pretty much worthless. I don't like to see movies in 3D specifically because of that - I'm already wearing one set of glasses, I don't want another.

[AmyFan @ Jun 18th 2009 9:38AM]

You know now they have prescription glasses that also have a polarized layer that you can put on when watching 3D movies or just wear all the time if you don't mind the tint. I mean at this point it's probably not worth it for watching 2-3 3D movies a year, but as 3D gets more popular so will these glasses I think.

[Duke @ Jun 18th 2009 10:01AM]

I have to agree with Matt her though. You are talking about a consumer electronic to go into all households, and that takes a populace that would not shy away from the idea of these glasses/lenses. I think that the larger portion of users would not like the idea and not feel the necessity in messing with their eye wear just to sit and watch tv. We aren't talking about something just for the tech savvy here, but something that would have to draw in the grandma and grandpa's of the world too.

[darkmax @ Jun 18th 2009 9:58AM]

Does the girl come with the TV?

[hh83917 @ Jun 18th 2009 10:17AM]

Nice, hot girl with a hot TV again. TIme to watch some My Bloody Valentine 3D...

[che-che @ Jun 18th 2009 10:29PM]

long time reader, first time commentor.

man would i like to see her in 3-D! EH! Anyone!

[andres @ Jun 18th 2009 11:19PM]

more like id like to see her 2 d's. cuz 3 would just be wrong.

[lakersin2025 @ Jun 18th 2009 12:04PM]

I would wear the glasses no problem. The only time I go to the movies now is if it's in 3-d. Just wear contact lenses if the glasses over glasses bothers you. Can't wait to watch sports in 3-d at home!

[Overgauss @ Jun 18th 2009 2:01PM]

Concuraga. If you can play with a waggle stick and yell "wee!" with no problem, I'm not sure I actually see (ahem) the issue with wearing 3D glasses.

If the 3D is sufficiently good while remaining cost effective, I would wear them in a heart beat.

When people think 3D, they think glasses, it's not a hard concept to deal with. If the experience is awesome people will have no problem wearing them.

If the 3d without glasses experience is much much MUCH greater than the best 3d with glasses, current future or otherwise, I'd pay an extra $250-500 for it on a cell equipped TV. Tops.

A bad ass video-card for your TV with free cell chip? Sure I'd do it.

[Matt @ Jun 18th 2009 2:42PM]

Not everyone who wears glasses has contact lenses, or, for that matter, can even wear them. I personally find them very uncomfortable.

[whoster69 @ Jun 18th 2009 2:02PM]

Who the hell wants to wear glasses to watch TV? Also, what about people that already have to wear glasses? Do they have to double up now?

3D would be great if we could drop the damn glasses. Until then, count me out.

[ED @ Jun 18th 2009 9:15PM]

No households are actually average, because no one will ever buy 4.5 pairs of grasses.

I mean, glasses.

[Peter @ Jun 20th 2009 2:26PM]

I'd take her any time, the TV is nice to.

[tom.v.smith @ Jul 21st 2009 7:04AM]

man, 3d how cool is that, i can't wait