Firsthand impressions outside the CES crucible are flowing in following the worldwide launch of Samsung's new LCD 3DTVs. UK publications have gotten up close with production versions of the new HDTVs, TechRadar observed the Monsters vs. Aliens Blu-ray disc packed in with the new displays over there plus the 2D-to-3D conversion feature, reporting the latter worked better on sports footage of ice skaters but caused "disconcerting" effect on news broadcasts. A video preview from Which? (embedded after the break) gives a good look at the new remote and managed to clear up one of the early worries about new display by confirming the 3D effect continued to work even from a wide viewing angle. For those who have already pressed the buy button, taking advantage of that effect will of course require 3D glasses. While Samsung's already promised multiple models a lone battery powered pair for adults has appeared for preorder on Vanns for $150, which despite the relatively reasonable cost of the displays could make group viewings very expensive for the early adopter. While that may not be out of the price range for some, we'll keep an eye out for pricing info from the competition -- and looking for cheaper 3rd party alternatives. Check out their impressions and decide for yourself how much a 3D World Cup experience is worth.
@suland What a ripoff! At $150 each, that would be another $750 for glasses just for the people who live here... If we have guests then it is even MORE! And if a pair gets lost or broken... And how the HELL am I supposed to wear THOSE over my existing glasses!
This whole 3D tv thing is stupid, and just a gimic to get people to buy new home movie gear.
@Q3Km518 Well they could sell cheap glasses for starts... The components to make a pair of active shutter glasses probably doesn't amount to more than $20. A couple of LCD lenses, a polarizing filter, some simple circuitry hooked up to an IR receiver and a small battery. Certainly cheap enough to pack 1 pair into the box.
@(Unverified) Sure, if it was polarizing technology... I thought this was different, in that it just alternated 2 normal images, and the shutters in the glasses synced with the images. Much more tech involved there than simply polarizing a couple lenses. Those have no need to sync with a display and probably cost 10c to manufacture. Hell, movie theaters only charge an extra 2 bucks for em.
Please do correct me if I'm wrong, Engadgeteers (reminds me of the Rocketeer.. I like it). I do agree though that the price is way too high for widespread adoption, even if the glasses were all you had to buy. AND, even if they are more expensive than $20 to manufacture, I'm willing to bet they are getting a full 100% profit off each one... Cause there's no way they cost more than $75 to manufacture... And that's just crazy.
@Donald NVIDIA has teased a YouTube 3D app for us 3D Vision owners... I really hope they release that soon! YouTube has a wealth of 3D content already available.
I hope NVIDIA releases some sort of app, even if I have to pay for it, to convert my downloaded 2D TV shows to 3D. I'm sure my video cards could handle it.
Regarding your comment, I'd say the technologies are too different to compare. I mean, I have a Samsung 3D monitor, the 2233RZ, but NVIDIA just provides the the video rendering for 3D. Samsung really just outputs the video it's fed. The 2D to 3D conversion is a pre-set, purpose built piece of silicon, I am willing to bet. It doesn't really have to render anything, just using light to determine what is closer and further away.
i was very impressed with Avatar in 3D (just like everyone else) but i really can't see 3D in the home catching on until we don't have to wear stupid glasses. TV is not supposed to have preparation and accessories.
@Troll one of my favorite quote that i think is very applicable here: "It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt." - Mark Twain
@kojo87 Its also quite annoying that the glass is a bit 'smoked' as it dims / greys everything a little. Then add the shutter effect and things aren't looking as vibrant as they could do.
They need to develop glasses that at least start clear to reduce the dimming effect. I found this quite annoying on my Elsa Revelators :|
The upgrade or perish ways of electronics have hit a lifetime low. Saying nothing about the impact on viewers.
If you hapen to be nearing the end of a law degree I reckon start preparing to lead the class action that's coming from this crap. Cause when the migranies, vomiting, eye strain, focus damage and longer term damage to the visual processing of the brain start to roll in over the next 5yrs.
@Cy Starkman just like the famous class action wins against film, crt's, led/plasma tv's, conteact lenses, microwave dinners, porn and reading hallo ... oh wait i live in reality not the usa. not going to happen anytime soon then.
Yawn, yeah I can see how the article is all about 3D without glasses, I am, YAWN, totally aware of accessory-less 3D. Sharp was actually the first to market (TMK) with a laptop that didn't need glasses a few years ago now. Wads
as for the comparison to TV and film, how clever for you not to understand the difference in the issues. Film and TV are a non issue, though perhaps your autisum was caused by being left in front of one for the first few years of your life.
As for no lawsuits, well the epilepsy inducing pokemon episode saw a rapid reversal in light of lawsuit potential.
Glasses based 3D is an ill conceived gimmick to drive a purchase refresh of TV hardware. So yeah whip out and buy up so you can do it all again in 3-5 years.
Now ponder that little baby without glasses on being left in front of the 3DTV for the first year of it's life. Or ponder how having your focal length force modified wihout it actually changing for like say oh 4-8 hrs a day like the average TV blob might have a slight impact. I could go on but if you didn't get it in the first place the you won't get it now.
Troll, my ass, i made a totally on topic, non flaming comment about dumb ass 3D glasses and the stupid Korean broadcasters who have said they will convert to 100% 3D this yea r to support the equally dumb ass Samsung who I hope get mashed for caring more about a forced upgrade cycle than the health of their customers.
I really dont think 3dtvs are going to take off. You just need too many new things and there wont be enough programming for awhile to even make it worth it. Plus i just bought a new tv and everything so im not going to go buy stuff.
Yeah same here. Plus putting on glasses to watch TV? Nahhhh. Fair enough you see something special in 3-D like Avatar. But ice-skating??? I'm quite happy with the previously hyped technology - good ol' high definition.
Someone explain to me how these crazy things work with circa-2007 DLP TVs by Samsung and Mitsubishi. I know they DO work with those TVs, but I'm kinda surprised you don't hear more about it. 3D is going to be such a huge deal this year apparently, but the fact that there's a bunch of sub-1000 dollar TVs floating around on Craigslist out there that can show giant 65 inch 3D movies isn't being discussed much.
They've taken the LED strips off the sides, now the TV is backlit from the top and bottom only. And this improves the picture how exactly? Sounds like a step backwards to me.
Plus, I don't care what anyone says, that new stand looks terrible. Samsung's current range looks gorgeous. I think their designers were very bored and decided to make their new TVs look like a squid.
@Darren Pillans I have read in other articles there will be a choice of 2 stands avaiable, one is the chrome looking starfish thing, and the other looks really good. Kind of like the square one shown on the samsung plasma here: http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1267184615
I wonder if there will be a standard for shutter glasses or if people are expected to buy pairs for every tv they might own. I sure hope so, because it would be stupid if every TV and every device like NVidia's nvision thing uses a different protocol or refresh rate.
Anyway, $150 for a pair of glasses, so $600 for a family is simply an outrage. Some day I expect TVs to pack at least one pair into the box and for them to cost $20-30 bought separately. When that day comes we might see 3D actually getting close to being mainstream.
At the moment its strictly for early adopters who want to buy half-implemented and expensive 3D kit to play a measly selection of content.
You will have to remember to turn the 3d off and on and remember to put your glasses off an on.
Fuck that.
I imagine after a bit of time, those that actually do buy these will eventually just leave the 3d off entirely. Mainly because they lost their fucking glasses. Again.
I honestly don't get why the manufacturers suddenly believe after all the proven busts of 3d for one reason (the glasses), that people are going to suddenly be ok with the glasses. Why?
If the 3D glasses going to cost that much. Then theirs no point in buying a 3D TVI. I m ean come on 150$ for a pair of glasses? I can buy a DS for that price tag. I say it's a gimmick to ALL TV MANUFACTURES MAKING MORE AND MORE MONEY JUST BECAUSE IT'S IN 3D. Thanks but no thanks you guys are getting too greedy making quick money schemes.
Someone please answer me this: Will we really need a 3D branded TV to view 3D, or just a set with 120Hz+ refresh rate? Ithought, when this shutter specs tech debuted, that you just needed a 120Hz TV to account for the split frames. Especially since it appears in the pic that the glasses sync with a little box in front of the tube, not the tube itself.
I mean, either way, I don't have a 120Hz, cause they were too expensive back when I bought mine. I'm just curious.
@Levi My understanding is that it has to be a native 120 that it is running at, not an upscaling sort of thing like the 2009 and earlier models do. The older ones just add in extra frames to smooth things out.
@Kristen Stewart No problem my a$$! I'm the proud owner of a 2007 samsung 3d led dlp, paid alot, lasted 18 months, now it won't turn on:( called samsung, they basicaly said sorry, buy a new tv. They wouldn't even tell me were to take it. Sure, jump on the band wagon right now, so when they come out with new tech in two year you'll most likely need a new tv anyway.......
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
posted February 26th 2010 1:03AM
@Troll Sir, I have just pewpt on your face. AMIRITE?
@Troll ok:
http://www.gizmag.com/go/4603/
@Troll
http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/06/xyz-autostereoscopic-display-takes-the-glasses-out-of-3d-for-re/
So, now those bastards gonna charge $150 for pair of UNfancy glasses...? Maybe a logo of Ray-Ban or Chanel will save them...
@suland What a ripoff! At $150 each, that would be another $750 for glasses just for the people who live here... If we have guests then it is even MORE! And if a pair gets lost or broken...
And how the HELL am I supposed to wear THOSE over my existing glasses!
This whole 3D tv thing is stupid, and just a gimic to get people to buy new home movie gear.
@tavisjohn
Exactly what else is a TV manufacturer supposed to do other than try to get people to buy TVs?
@Q3Km518 Well they could sell cheap glasses for starts... The components to make a pair of active shutter glasses probably doesn't amount to more than $20. A couple of LCD lenses, a polarizing filter, some simple circuitry hooked up to an IR receiver and a small battery. Certainly cheap enough to pack 1 pair into the box.
@(Unverified)
Sure, if it was polarizing technology... I thought this was different, in that it just alternated 2 normal images, and the shutters in the glasses synced with the images. Much more tech involved there than simply polarizing a couple lenses. Those have no need to sync with a display and probably cost 10c to manufacture. Hell, movie theaters only charge an extra 2 bucks for em.
Please do correct me if I'm wrong, Engadgeteers (reminds me of the Rocketeer.. I like it). I do agree though that the price is way too high for widespread adoption, even if the glasses were all you had to buy. AND, even if they are more expensive than $20 to manufacture, I'm willing to bet they are getting a full 100% profit off each one... Cause there's no way they cost more than $75 to manufacture... And that's just crazy.
@suland : wow, cylon mothership stand. nice.
@Q3Km518 Provide real features instead of gimics that are WAY over priced.
Donald Melanson says: they need a comparison between these and nVidia's 3D Vision.
@Donald NVIDIA has teased a YouTube 3D app for us 3D Vision owners... I really hope they release that soon! YouTube has a wealth of 3D content already available.
I hope NVIDIA releases some sort of app, even if I have to pay for it, to convert my downloaded 2D TV shows to 3D. I'm sure my video cards could handle it.
Regarding your comment, I'd say the technologies are too different to compare. I mean, I have a Samsung 3D monitor, the 2233RZ, but NVIDIA just provides the the video rendering for 3D. Samsung really just outputs the video it's fed. The 2D to 3D conversion is a pre-set, purpose built piece of silicon, I am willing to bet. It doesn't really have to render anything, just using light to determine what is closer and further away.
its great how he pulls out a SONY usb stick for the dvr functionality
Glasses require batteries?? Huh??
i was very impressed with Avatar in 3D (just like everyone else) but i really can't see 3D in the home catching on until we don't have to wear stupid glasses. TV is not supposed to have preparation and accessories.
@Troll
It is possible and it has been done so by other companies.
@KGB i've been trying to post a link to an article about that but Engadget is being lame and it won't show.
@KGB
http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/06/xyz-autostereoscopic-display-takes-the-glasses-out-of-3d-for-re/
@Troll one of my favorite quote that i think is very applicable here:
"It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt." - Mark Twain
@kojo87
Its also quite annoying that the glass is a bit 'smoked' as it dims / greys everything a little. Then add the shutter effect and things aren't looking as vibrant as they could do.
They need to develop glasses that at least start clear to reduce the dimming effect. I found this quite annoying on my Elsa Revelators :|
The upgrade or perish ways of electronics have hit a lifetime low. Saying nothing about the impact on viewers.
If you hapen to be nearing the end of a law degree I reckon start preparing to lead the class action that's coming from this crap. Cause when the migranies, vomiting, eye strain, focus damage and longer term damage to the visual processing of the brain start to roll in over the next 5yrs.
A pretty packet await$ indeed
@Cy Starkman
just like the famous class action wins against film, crt's, led/plasma tv's, conteact lenses, microwave dinners, porn and reading hallo ... oh wait i live in reality not the usa. not going to happen anytime soon then.
@sod and friends
Yawn, yeah I can see how the article is all about 3D without glasses, I am, YAWN, totally aware of accessory-less 3D. Sharp was actually the first to market (TMK) with a laptop that didn't need glasses a few years ago now. Wads
as for the comparison to TV and film, how clever for you not to understand the difference in the issues. Film and TV are a non issue, though perhaps your autisum was caused by being left in front of one for the first few years of your life.
As for no lawsuits, well the epilepsy inducing pokemon episode saw a rapid reversal in light of lawsuit potential.
Glasses based 3D is an ill conceived gimmick to drive a purchase refresh of TV hardware. So yeah whip out and buy up so you can do it all again in 3-5 years.
Now ponder that little baby without glasses on being left in front of the 3DTV for the first year of it's life. Or ponder how having your focal length force modified wihout it actually changing for like say oh 4-8 hrs a day like the average TV blob might have a slight impact. I could go on but if you didn't get it in the first place the you won't get it now.
Troll, my ass, i made a totally on topic, non flaming comment about dumb ass 3D glasses and the stupid Korean broadcasters who have said they will convert to 100% 3D this yea r to support the equally dumb ass Samsung who I hope get mashed for caring more about a forced upgrade cycle than the health of their customers.
I really dont think 3dtvs are going to take off. You just need too many new things and there wont be enough programming for awhile to even make it worth it. Plus i just bought a new tv and everything so im not going to go buy stuff.
@engadget123
Yeah same here. Plus putting on glasses to watch TV? Nahhhh. Fair enough you see something special in 3-D like Avatar. But ice-skating??? I'm quite happy with the previously hyped technology - good ol' high definition.
it'd make a whole lot more sense if they supplied 4 or 5 pairs of glasses. i mean, you don't buy a family car, then buy the extra seats separately :/
Someone explain to me how these crazy things work with circa-2007 DLP TVs by Samsung and Mitsubishi. I know they DO work with those TVs, but I'm kinda surprised you don't hear more about it. 3D is going to be such a huge deal this year apparently, but the fact that there's a bunch of sub-1000 dollar TVs floating around on Craigslist out there that can show giant 65 inch 3D movies isn't being discussed much.
They've taken the LED strips off the sides, now the TV is backlit from the top and bottom only. And this improves the picture how exactly? Sounds like a step backwards to me.
Plus, I don't care what anyone says, that new stand looks terrible. Samsung's current range looks gorgeous. I think their designers were very bored and decided to make their new TVs look like a squid.
@Darren Pillans
I have read in other articles there will be a choice of 2 stands avaiable, one is the chrome looking starfish thing, and the other looks really good. Kind of like the square one shown on the samsung plasma here:
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1267184615
And early reviews are looking like the PQ is better with the just top and bottom lighting, so maybe samsung figured something out that works better. This explains a bit more about it:
http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=it&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dday.it%2Fredazione%2F968%2FLa-nuova-generazione-di-local-dimming.html
@Bamboo
Thanks for the info and the links.
Hello! Estradaaa!!!
I wonder if there will be a standard for shutter glasses or if people are expected to buy pairs for every tv they might own. I sure hope so, because it would be stupid if every TV and every device like NVidia's nvision thing uses a different protocol or refresh rate.
Anyway, $150 for a pair of glasses, so $600 for a family is simply an outrage. Some day I expect TVs to pack at least one pair into the box and for them to cost $20-30 bought separately. When that day comes we might see 3D actually getting close to being mainstream.
At the moment its strictly for early adopters who want to buy half-implemented and expensive 3D kit to play a measly selection of content.
That picture on the tv says it all for me.
You will have to remember to turn the 3d off and on and remember to put your glasses off an on.
Fuck that.
I imagine after a bit of time, those that actually do buy these will eventually just leave the 3d off entirely. Mainly because they lost their fucking glasses. Again.
I honestly don't get why the manufacturers suddenly believe after all the proven busts of 3d for one reason (the glasses), that people are going to suddenly be ok with the glasses. Why?
If the 3D glasses going to cost that much. Then theirs no point in buying a 3D TVI. I m ean come on 150$ for a pair of glasses? I can buy a DS for that price tag. I say it's a gimmick to ALL TV MANUFACTURES MAKING MORE AND MORE MONEY JUST BECAUSE IT'S IN 3D. Thanks but no thanks you guys are getting too greedy making quick money schemes.
Someone please answer me this: Will we really need a 3D branded TV to view 3D, or just a set with 120Hz+ refresh rate? Ithought, when this shutter specs tech debuted, that you just needed a 120Hz TV to account for the split frames. Especially since it appears in the pic that the glasses sync with a little box in front of the tube, not the tube itself.
I mean, either way, I don't have a 120Hz, cause
they were too expensive back when I bought mine. I'm just curious.
@Levi
My understanding is that it has to be a native 120 that it is running at, not an upscaling sort of thing like the 2009 and earlier models do. The older ones just add in extra frames to smooth things out.
@Kristen Stewart No problem my a$$! I'm the proud owner of a 2007 samsung 3d led dlp, paid alot, lasted 18 months, now it won't turn on:( called samsung, they basicaly said sorry, buy a new tv. They wouldn't even tell me were to take it. Sure, jump on the band wagon right now, so when they come out with new tech in two year you'll most likely need a new tv anyway.......
I bet the idiots are already cuing up to buy one.
I wonder if glasses from theater like imax one work with those tv?
Way to showcase your eyeglass compatible 3d glasses by not wearing them.