Anyone here have personal experience with modern 3D DLP TVs?

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Which is probably my biggest "problem" with 3D. It tends to be either annoying/gimicky or unnoticeable. So what's the point in investing in equipment to support it if it doesn't add anything.



I do, but more in an interactive way, I can focus on different differences, when I move my head, perspective changes. Neither of which happen/exist with 3D display (movies), which is another problem for me and 3D, I find myself constantly trying (unsuccessfully) to focus on different depths.

Actually, accurate 3D you CAN converge on different depths (which is what I think you are meaning). As long as the interocular distance is consistent with the zoom level of the cameras, then each eye has it's full field of view (within the viewing window), and you can converge on different objects at will. The problems arise out of camera lens focus, where, for instance, distant objects are out of focus, whether in 2D or 3D. This will prevent you from focusing on those items regardless of number of dimensions. This has always been done in film to bring your attention AWAY from those out of focus areas, and it holds true for 3D as well.

[Fuzzy]

As for the extra cost, as I had mentioned before, with wobulated DLP, the cost is JUST the glasses, and the port on the set for the IR emitter. I bought my 2 pairs of glasses and the IR emitter for < $130 total, and used it a LOT for games before 3D blurays were available.

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

The laser tv is no thinner than an LED one.

Yeah, I had remembered when they were prototypes that mits said they could be 5" thick. I now see that didn't happen. Only 2" thinner than a regular mits of the same size. I do remember the sammys being thinner than the mits of the same size. It's been a while since I've sold TV's so my memory is a little fuzzy (no pun).

I do remember that when they stopped making them they went down to stupid cheap prices. You could get a 57" (iirc) for like $700. End of life for products was always a great time to buy.

[Fuzzy]

I'm not sure mitsubishi of the same tech were really any thinner than the sammy's, but the samsung went to the tapered profile a few years before mitsubishi did (Mitsubishi stuck with the box cabinet for a few more years i think).

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

Actually, accurate 3D you CAN converge on different depths (which is what I think you are meaning). As long as the interocular distance is consistent with the zoom level of the cameras, then each eye has it's full field of view (within the viewing window), and you can converge on different objects at will. The problems arise out of camera lens focus, where, for instance, distant objects are out of focus, whether in 2D or 3D. This will prevent you from focusing on those items regardless of number of dimensions. This has always been done in film to bring your attention AWAY from those out of focus areas, and it holds true for 3D as well.

Actually I was talking about focus. And while true that Depth of Field affects both 2D and 3D, it's not a problem for me with 2D because my brain doesn't see "real" depth in a 2D image so it doesn't try to focus on them.

I had the problem in Avatar where I could see depth, so my eyes/brain would try to look around and focus on different things, but the background would be out of focus (DOF) so I couldn't actually focus, which bugged me.

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

As for the extra cost, as I had mentioned before, with wobulated DLP, the cost is JUST the glasses, and the port on the set for the IR emitter. I bought my 2 pairs of glasses and the IR emitter for < $130 total, and used it a LOT for games before 3D blurays were available.

But you need some source for 3D content too, and the 3D content. If you're a gamer (PC) I can see it being great, but if not, I just don't see a point to 3D for non-interactive content.