Powered by i.TV
October 24, 2014

3D television

Start the 3D TV Revolution Without Me

by Allison Waldman, posted Apr 3rd 2010 9:00AM
3D_TV_watching_glassesTechnology is a marvelous thing, right? No, no, this is not a story about the Apple iPad coming out this weekend or the wonders it promises to bring -- just ask Phil Dunphy. He called it the first day of the rest of your life.

But no, the technology that has me scratching my head is 3D television. That's right, the state-of-the-art, mind-blowing idea that you will be able to watch television in a way you never have before. Bigger than a big screen. Better than high definition. More powerful that a home theater sensurround experience.

Next weekend, if you have invested in a first generation 3D TV for about $2,500, you'll be able to watch the Masters Golf Tournament in 3D. And you had better spend on the glasses, too, because not all sets are sold with the spectacles that make the 3D possible in the first place. Funny, you would think that the glasses were included, but apparently not. It's like some computers that ship without a power cord. Are you kidding me?

Read More

Do more 3D movies mean 3D at home?

by Danny Gallagher, posted Oct 27th 2009 10:02AM
A 3D movie crowdAll this talk of 3-D television has really puzzled me. It seems the companies are pushing more for the technology than the customers actually want it. It's the debut of the Toyota Prius all over again.

Television manufacturers are hoping the onslaught of 3-D movies, such as Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, will increase the whisper-level clamors for 3-D televisions. The TVs should be in stores next year.

To me, the two experiences are almost completely different. 3-D films work in the theaters because the audience is forced to look at the screen, whereas TV is a completely voluntary viewing experience. If there is a way to utilize the technology to enhance the experience on more than just a visual level, like Comedy Central's first-person junk-joke-fest Secret Girlfriend, then maybe you've got gold.

Read More

I'm sorry James Cameron, but 3D is not the future of television

by Jason Hughes, posted Aug 23rd 2009 2:24PM
3d glasses at Cannes Film FestivalJames Cameron has a lot of money. So if he wants to throw some of it at Panasonic to help promote 3D TVs, that's his terrible decision. He shot his latest film in 3D, so he's clearly got it on his mind. And if Avatar does as well as the response to that trailer would have us believe, he may have a lot of free time soon anyway.

Speaking of time, this is about the worst time to try and thrust new television and film technology on consumers. Aren't we still in the middle of this transition to digital broadcasts, HDTV and Blu-Ray? Now you're telling us we should buy new HDTVs and new Blu-Ray players that support 3D technology? Oh, and we'll need those cool 3D glasses, too.

There's a few problems with this. 3D was going to revolutionize the movies in the '80s. It didn't happen. It's supposed to be "going to revolutionize" movies right now, but it's not happening.

Read More

    Follow Us

    From Our Partners