Now we're talking. Next gen 3D.

[JackBurton]

This is what 3D should have been from its inception. 4K and UHDTV, yeah, I'll dig out the wallet for that.

UHDTV article

 

[Kaido]

4K glasses-free 3D? Yes, I would bite.

I'm not sold in 3D in general, but that's because it's a hassle to wear glasses (on top of my regular glasses), you have to buy them (and usually the expensive active ones), you have to keep them charged if they're the active ones, and unless you either have a huge TV or sit close, meh. I do like it in theaters for made-for-3D movies like Avatar, that was amazing in 3D and not so amazing in 2D. Not sold on the whole High-Framerate 3D either, I think it looks more realistic than regular 3D, but has too many weird drawbacks for my tastes.

Interesting about the 2D to 3D conversion too - I watched part of a Seinfeld episode on a demo unit at Best Buy and it was surprisingly decent! Also interesting that (1) they name HiSense (an inexpensive brand they sell at Walmart) as the manufacturer of the 4K glasses-free 3D set with 2D to 3D conversion, and (2) that the HiSense model is a backlit and not edge-lit model.

Based on that review, I would absolutely buy one! Dang, sign me up! Nice article, thanks!

 

[nace186]

I actually saw 4K glasses-free 3D tv at CES early this year and I was not impress at all. It wasn't as clear as I expected it to be and the depth of 3D was very shallow.

 

[Aikouka]

I wonder if this is anything like what they showed off at CES. Those ones required the television to track the head of the user, so it could show the frames properly. In other words, it didn't work that well for people that were situated with too large of an angle between them.

I'm not sold in 3D in general, but that's because it's a hassle to wear glasses (on top of my regular glasses), you have to buy them (and usually the expensive active ones), you have to keep them charged if they're the active ones, and unless you either have a huge TV or sit close, meh.

Just use passive 3D. You don't notice any sort of drop in resolution, and the eye wear is the same as the theaters. Although, I use super-sexy clip-ons over my prescription glasses. They drive the ladies wild.

 

[JackBurton]

I actually saw 4K glasses-free 3D tv at CES early this year and I was not impress at all. It wasn't as clear as I expected it to be and the depth of 3D was very shallow.

I believe this is a different and better implementation of glasses free 3D. Quite honestly, this looks like the 3D everyone has been waiting for.

 

[JackBurton]

I wonder if this is anything like what they showed off at CES. Those ones required the television to track the head of the user, so it could show the frames properly. In other words, it didn't work that well for people that were situated with too large of an angle between them.

As I stated before, I believe this is a different and better implemented solution. It also looks to have great viewing angles.

Just use passive 3D. You don't notice any sort of drop in resolution, and the eye wear is the same as the theaters. Although, I use super-sexy clip-ons over my prescription glasses. They drive the ladies wild.

That's a step in the wrong direction. IMO, the best use of passive 3D is on a 4K set, where it is able to display the full 1080p resolution in 3D. Anything less is a compromise. But even then you still have to wear glasses, which sucks. If this tech delivers, we could have everything we've been asking for, with no downsides.

 

[Aikouka]

That's a step in the wrong direction. IMO, the best use of passive 3D is on a 4K set, where it is able to display the full 1080p resolution in 3D. Anything less is a compromise. But even then you still have to wear glasses, which sucks. If this tech delivers, we could have everything we've been asking for, with no downsides.

Out of curiosity, have you ever tried passive 3D on a 1080p TV? Have you ever tried good passive 3D glasses? (i.e. not glasses from the theater ) I don't disagree with you that full resolution and no glasses would certainly be better, but it sounds like you're saying the setup that I mentioned just isn't acceptable because of the technical aspects behind it. I'm not propping it up simply because that's what I own; I mention it because I think it works fine.

 

[JackBurton]

Out of curiosity, have you ever tried passive 3D on a 1080p TV? Have you ever tried good passive 3D glasses? (i.e. not glasses from the theater ) I don't disagree with you that full resolution and no glasses would certainly be better, but it sounds like you're saying the setup that I mentioned just isn't acceptable because of the technical aspects behind it. I'm not propping it up simply because that's what I own; I mention it because I think it works fine.

Yep. I actually recommended a set to my brother, and prefer it over active 3D sets. Don't get me wrong, it's a good set and the 3D is nice, but I just don't like the fact that I'm not getting the full resolution.

 

[mmntech]

Glasses-less 3D has been around for a while but the holy grail was viewing angle. This is why I need to weasel my way in getting sent to NAB next year.

 

[Gintaras]

What I should do?
Could a new TV improve my vision?
I can't see 3D - everything is 2D and 480 - pretty blurry...
Eggs I want to boil - people tell me that I want to boil eggs cut out of pictures...I'd like to drive a car, but people say, I do try to sit in a car's picture...

Maybe if I buy 3D TV, it would help my Vision, I could see better...
And I was told, 3D TV with glasses won't help me...
If I do want to boil real eggs, I do need to get glass-less 3D TV...

My Vision is so bad - no HD, no 3D...

I was told, I can see CRT only...

Help me please...

 

[purbeast0]

damn this is pretty neat. the whole glasses thing doesn't bother me nearly as much as the loss in color. i'd love to see this in action. the "glassless 3d" that i've seen so far is only with the 3ds, and the tech seems pretty weak to me and it did give me a slight headache cause of the focusing. i hope this is different than that.