Home / News / TV News / Samsung Begins Mass Production of 3D HDTVs

Samsung Begins Mass Production of 3D HDTVs

Gordon Kelly

by

Samsung Begins Mass Production of 3D HDTVs

It's over it's over - hooray! (...and *snore*) Let's move on with other equally annoying and overhyped technology...

Speaking of which, Samsung has announced mass production of its 3D LED and LCD television panels has now begun. This being Samsung it is naturally a world first and 40in, 46in and 55in Full HD panels with 240Hz motion technology are now flying off the factory floors as we speak (I hope not literally, well...).

Samsung claims the response time of both these LCD and LED panels have been reduced by 20 per cent to under four milliseconds and says this will help achieve more natural 3D images and sharper 2D movement. Users will need to wear the '3D Active Glasses' for 3D broadcasts, though these were at least standardised by the 'Glasses Standardization Working Group' (it really exists) earlier this year.

Sales of 3DTVs are expected to leap from 200,000 units in 2009 to 64m by 2018 - though that is still surprisingly niche considering the 6,798,900,000 people on the planet. In fact it's less than one per cent. And no, I'm still not a fan of 3D - at least this faux form of it where flat 2D images are simply presented at different depths like a pop-up book. In fact, I'm about as convinced by 3DTV as I am by tablets.

In related news Sky has confirmed it will have its first 3D broadcast in April, with a special preview on 31 January showing the Arsenal vs Manchester United league match in seven specially equipped pubs in the UK.

Cardiff, Dublin, Edinburgh, London and Manchester will be the cities where they can be found, though Sky has yet to reveal the names of these fine drinking establishments. Consequently options are a) try and tirelessly track them down, or b) save the petrol money, do the environment a favour use the extra cash to have a few extra pints in your local and I suspect the game will then look like it's in 3D anyway. Problem solved.

Links:

Samsung Press Release

Sky

HDRE

January 28, 2010, 1:26 pm

Sorry TV Manufactures 3D is red herring, 2D is king and will remain so. 3D viewing will always be an "event", rather than the norm whilst we have to wear glasses to get the experience. The majority of the buying public will stay away. There is no way I'd be prepared to pay a premium on this tech after upgrading last year for a HD TV. As for Sky... I can hear the cha-ching in the brain of a Mr Rupert Murdoch and 2 words... charge more.





The only premium I'm prepared to shell out for is Wireless HD & Wirless Power. This is only a distraction for me.

Ala Miah

January 28, 2010, 2:48 pm

TV companies and manfucaturing can continue throwing money in the air with the hope of people throwing theirs but it will NOT happen. After the whole HDTV Saga, people are not ready for another one, not at least a technology that is'nt that great.

Jmac

January 28, 2010, 3:33 pm

"I'm still not a fan of 3D - at least this faux form of it where flat 2D images are simply presented at different depths like a pop-up book"





I don't follow this at all. Current 3D technology uses polarised or active shutter glasses to present a different frame to each eye, allowing us to perceive depth. There is no reason that this has to present "flat 2D images at different depths" - by rendering or filming the same scene from 2 distinct viewpoints, it is possible to present the 3D image more or less exactly as you would have seen had you been watching it live. I say more or less, because you lose focal depth. I find this can be distracting with 3D images, because my eyes naturally try to focus at different focal lengths according to the perceived depth of different parts of the scene, which doesn't work. I presume you are taking issue with the fixed viewpoint issue, so every viewer sees the same two viewpoints, irrespective of position, and moving one's head relative to the screen can destroy the illusion. Realistically speaking, this is as good as pre-recorded 3D is ever going to become. The idea of a full 3D recording in which the viewer can freely choose his viewpoint is fantastical from a technical standpoint - how would you capture and store (or broadcast) all that information? How would you cater for the specular lighting effects that change according to viewpoint, given you can't film from every possible angle? It is also a directorial nightmare - what happens when the viewer turns the viewpoint around 180 degrees and is looking at the film crew?





For realtime content (e.g. video games, or perhaps a motion captured sports event where the position of all the players, ball etc. are captured in realtime and transmitted to the user, who then renders the game from his chosen viewpoint at home using a computer, games console or some future TV technology), there is more promise for 'better' 3D - you could have a system that tracks the user's head movements and changes the viewpoint accordingly.





As an aside, 3D is (and always will be) a compromise solution for directors - they have to be careful not to use jump cuts which quickly change the depth of the scene (can make people ill) and are limited in their ability to use tight focal ranges, because the illusion of depth conflicts with the viewer's inability to change the focus of the scene.

jopey

January 28, 2010, 4:19 pm

"And no, I'm still not a fan of 3D - at least this faux form of it where flat 2D images are simply presented at different depths like a pop-up book."





Maybe you are one of the few percent of people who can't see 3D properly because the 3D I've seen is most certainly not 2D planes presented at differing depths. There has been some quick and dirty conversions which are like that but animated content and proper 2 camera 3D movies are definitely proper 3D. I've actually done some stereoscopic photography and it's fairly easy to achieve.

DrDark

January 28, 2010, 4:50 pm

I agree with all of Gordon's points. I saw this stuff, and it does look like a pop up book. No doubt that can be improved over time, but I still wouldn't want to wear extra glasses (over my own) for more than 2 hours.





@John: You could have just said "Avatar was overhyped"! :P

Chris Beach

January 28, 2010, 5:56 pm

Having just saw Avatar yesterday, I had the opposite reaction to home 3d...paying almost £10 for the ticket...£2 to cover some reused dirty glasses, is just crap. Almost certianly wont be bothering again.





But at home with a 40"+ screen and your own looked after glasses, I think it could be quite cool. Assuming the blurays have 3d and non3d in the same pack...don't want to choose one or the other.





Whethere Avatar deserved all the hype is debatable, but its certiantly a far more compelling reason for 3D and raining meatballs or giant green ogres. Cameron used 3d without abusing 3d.

Williamn

January 28, 2010, 6:07 pm

I saw the most recent Ice Age film in 3D at the cinema. I prefer 2D, any day. It's a gimmick.

DrDark

January 28, 2010, 6:20 pm

@cjb110: in that case the only thing holding you back will be the cost...

jopey

January 28, 2010, 7:34 pm

@cjb110 You should have gone to see it with RealD, you only have to buy the glasses once (70p), and you can keep them and bring them back next time. I can't stand the other one's where you sit with people's nose grease on your face for several hours. Me and my friend went to see Avatar yesterday as well and it was £5 each with the orange Wednesday. Wouldn't pay full price mind.

Mo

January 29, 2010, 12:41 am

It was fun watching Avatar in 3D but I just can't see myself sitting at home wearing these things. Wouldn't it take away the fun of 3D if you could just watch it at home instead of enjoying it at the Cinema or IMAX(in the case of Avatar). Even so, I got irritated with the specs and had to keep taking them off every now and then. I'm not yet convinced.

Frankf9d

January 29, 2010, 6:32 am

@cjb 110, I agree Avatar was a great use of 3D, but jopey offers sterling advice, so find a friend who is an Orange customer, you can also do pizza before/after for 50%.





Johns McLeans' comments make sense in the light of some entertaiment pundits' prediction at CES, featured on 'Click' last weekend, that eventually we can be part of the film, moving around the action and viewing from dfferent angles whithin the film, I think he is pointing up why it's not going to happen soon, if ever.

Jmac

January 29, 2010, 2:10 pm

@drdark ("@John: You could have just said "Avatar was overhyped"! :P")





Was that in response to me? I don't think Avatar was overhyped at all - I think it is a phenomenal cinematic experience (albeit a fairly mediocre piece of sci-fi, in terms of its plot). My point was simply that, barring small incremental advances, the current crop of 3D movies (stereoscopic images requiring glasses) is as good as it's going to get.

DrDark

January 29, 2010, 10:01 pm

@John McLean: Yes, sorry for the confusion. I added a ":P" to indicate sarcasm.


My point was that while you and I may know it wasn't going to do all the 3D wizardry you discussed, the general hype machine surrounding it was only drowned out by MW2. And hype recently has made me want to punch several people in the face.





But yes, silly plot. And who the hell came up with "Unobtainium"? The tit.

DrDark

February 1, 2010, 5:01 pm

If anyone has a Metro paper about, check this out:


Page7: has a short story about Sky's 3D football match trials, with two "soundbites" by a Sky spokesperson, and a small line at the bottom linking to Page56.


Page56: Metro's take on the event which could be summed up as saying "it was a bit shit".





How odd that the negative comments seem buried in the last couple of pages...

b o d

February 1, 2010, 7:03 pm

@drdark post links or it didn't happen ;-)





http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/f...


http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/di...

DrDark

February 1, 2010, 9:05 pm

@b_o_d: Thanks. Someone unloaded a manure-truck of work on me this morning and I didn't have time to look up linkage.

Jay4d0

February 2, 2010, 6:07 am

3D is just a gimmick designed to prevent piracy it adds nothing to the films apart from the throwing of things in your face and pointing objects at you

Brian

February 2, 2010, 8:35 pm

I have to admit 3D does not appeal to me, i wear glasses anyways, so it doesn't work well for any one with.

comments powered by Disqus