We've been waiting on Woz's
favorite 3D display
ever to ship for quite some time, and as of now, no delays have been seen. According to a new interview with HDI CEO Ingemar Jansson, the June ship date for its
103-inch, laser-based monster is still on track, with a
$10,000 price tag being placed on it when ordered "in volume." Frankly, there's not much here that we haven't
already heard about the new face of 1080p 3D in the home; what
is new, however, is the mention that smaller versions could very well be on the horizon. Regardless of whether you're man or woman enough to admit it, a 103-inch set is far too large for the vast majority of homes, so a 46-inch iteration -- which was mentioned specifically in the dialog -- could be a perfect alternative. There was no time table or estimated price given for the smaller version(s), but you can bet we'll be keeping an ear to the ground for more. Oh, and if you don't think an HDTV upstart can give Sony, Sharp and Samsung a run for their money, there's a "
Mr. Vizio" in the back room that would like to have a word with you.
posted March 8th 2010 12:04PM
I feel like any second those guys will pull out some banjos and sing blue grass.
@HardToBelieve Just add some lasers and we have got one hell of a show.
@HardToBelieve : Dunno about that. I think the guy to the right is Meatloaf so there's a bigger risk that a rock ballad breaks out.
The guy in the middle almost looked like an older, narrower William Shatner, just at first glance. Anyone else see that?
But can these TVs be attached to the heads of sharks?
What we need is 4D! make a seat that compatible with those TV at certain movie.
@techlord I got the first sentence, but then my parser failed. I thought, perhaps, that the words were reordered to emphasize the 4D joke somehow (i.e. playing with "time"), but I couldn't make it work.
10k is a little pricey for my blood, I hope the price on these come down because they are really incredible sets. Also a 46in set is just too small for my room, I would like to see something between 60 and 70in.
@reallynotnick
My room's too small for my tv.
82in ftw
@reallynotnick
My room's too small for my tv.
82in ftw
can't wait to be done with college so i can fit my tv in a proportionally sized room.
@reallynotnick Yup, my 67" works really well in my living room. I could actually go a smidge larger.
@Lord Vader Maybe they will help you take off that mask and just for once let you see it with your own eyes.
What is with the admit in the headline? There is a certain connotation to admitting something, as if they were trying to hide a misdeed and later coming clean about it.
I also don't think 103" is necessarily too large for most homes, I project larger in my apartment. Though $10k is too much for most budgets.
I just don't want to live in a world where a 46" iteration is a perfect alternative for a 103" screen.
Sigh, I'm not really interested much in 3D tech. I'm happy with 2D for my movies...
@Standingfast
I agree completely.
Here's an interesting thing...
They claim that they produce 3D 1920x1080p Left+Right images SIMULTANEOUSLY on the screen. You get Left/Right images at the same time! So the resolution is actually 4K.
They're also using LCOS, which has generally better black level than LCD or DLP.
The other advantage is they use passive glasses, so they should be significantly cheaper than active shutter glasses. Of course, the 100'' TV itself is pricey... but I have a 73'' TV and would GLADLY jump to 100''!
-Pie
Wow
There are countless 3D TV standards coming out now... when will they realise that HD-DVDs lost to Blu-Ray and that Betamax lost to the DVD. My point is, won't there be a format war (because some devices will be made for shutter-based 3D TVs, some for laser-based, and some for no-glasses-needed TVs coming out soon).
I wanted to buy one of these Acer 3D projectors, but am holding off because I don't know who will win the format war. (i.e. which standard will 3D Blu-ray players support, which one will 3D cable support, etc):
http://us.acer.com/acer/seu30e.do?LanguageISOCtxParam=en&link=ln374e&CountryISOCtxParam=US&acond125e=66152&kcond48e.c2att101=66152&sp=page17e&ctx1g.c2att92=263&ctx2.c2att1=0&ctx1.att21k=1&CRC=3497528471
103" is NOT too large for the vast majority of homes. It might be larger than the vast majority wives may allow their husbands to get though. If you are sitting 12' or more back from the screen that is plenty of space for most people to catch all the action. When you have to move your eyes to see both edges of a screen - THEN it is too large for the distance you are viewing from. You can find tons of different measurements as to what is the correct viewing distance/size formula. The only formula you need is the same one your eye doctor uses when fitting you for glasses - how much can you see without moving your eyes. I tell people to put 4 strips of painters tape in the corners of the area where they want the screen. When they have to move their eyes - they've found the point where the screen is too large.
I help a lot of people buy TV's and I have NEVER had anyone say a week later - gee I wish I bought a smaller screen. I have however had MANY people say a week later I wish I bought a bigger screen.
I do however have concerns at how crisp the picture will appear at 1080p. Most vendors playing around with TV's larger than 70" are using quad resolution so the items don't look like a screen is placed over the image and the pixels look too large.
103" is too SMALL for my home. I have a 110 in projection screen and still want a bigger screen.