backtop


Print 18 comment(s) - last by cmdrdredd.. on Mar 31 at 4:03 PM

The South Korean electronics manufacturer sees a big future for 3DTV in the coming years

LG Electronics plans to sell 1 million 3DTV models by the end of the year, which will give it roughly one-fourth of the developing market. LG is the No. 2 TV brand in the world, and sees the growing 3D market as a key industry business.  The South Korean company also believes the market will sell 3.8 million 3DTV units in 2010, with the number ballooning up to 13 million in 2011.

"Our goal is boosting market share in 3DTVs and you can clearly see that, as our target for 3D market share is 10 percentage points above our LCD TV sales target," said Havis Kwon, LG VP, during a recent press conference.

LG also recently announced the first 3D LED-backlit TV in the word, saying its LX9500 HDTV offers 480HZ TruMotion, 1,200 individual LEDs, and supports internet-enabled features.

Panasonic, which is showing off its 3DTVs in Best Buy locations in the United States, wants to sell 1 million 3DTVs by March 31, 2011, which is the company's next fiscal year.  Sony and Samsung also have announced 3DTV plans, with Sony models expected to hit Best Buy later this year.  

There also has been an increase in 3D Blu-ray player development, as movie studios are now interested in selling 3D content to consumers.  The technology is still relatively expensive, so many consumers may be willing to wait a bit longer for the format to develop further.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I just don't believe in 3DTV
By Shig on 3/30/2010 10:45:54 PM , Rating: 2
Just the simple fact that Bluray adoption has been so slow while the adoption of HDTV's has been relatively high leads me to believe 3DTV won't be adopted nearly as fast as they think.

The Bluray to 3DTV analogy might be totally wrong, I don't know. I just can't imagine huge 3DTV adoption when a better technology like Bluray was so slow to be adopted, even today.

Paying extra for special 3DTV cable or sattelite services and wearing clunky glasses, not to mention a TV that most likely will cost more than standard HDTV's. It just doesn't add up for me.

An expensive gimmicky technology in today's economic mess? Not happening LG, maybe South Korea loves 3D or something.




RE: I just don't believe in 3DTV
By HighWing on 3/31/2010 2:30:25 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you that 3dtv will never really take off with glasses. However, while I know this particular model is not, there exists the technology to make 3d tv without glasses. And the recent announcement of Nintendo's new DS which offers 3d without glasses is proof of that. I can't recall where or from who I read it, but I'm pretty sure there are plans for 3dtv's later this year without glasses. And that could actually take off.


RE: I just don't believe in 3DTV
By Aloonatic on 3/31/2010 6:49:47 AM , Rating: 2
You can (apparently) get electronic photo frames that display 3D photographs that can be viewed without glasses now.

The problem with 3D as I see it is that it still (correct me if I'm wrong) relies on you wanting to focus where the director wants you be looking. That is kinda OK in films, where a lot of effort, time and care (hence money) can be spent in order to get that to work out OK, but in general TV and sporting events I'm a lot more sceptical as to how well the current systems will work.

I must admit, I'm only going by what I have seen in theatres tho. Has anyone watched any of the recent sporting events that have been shown in 3D? How well have they worked out?


RE: I just don't believe in 3DTV
By Dribble on 3/31/2010 6:56:10 AM , Rating: 2
Glasses-less 3D relies on you being in a very specific place in front of the screen. The 3d screen effectively only lets one eye see what's on it at a time by using the LCD like a Venetian blind.

This is ok for a DS but won't work for a TV.


RE: I just don't believe in 3DTV
By danobrega on 3/31/2010 7:01:16 AM , Rating: 2
True. Only a few broadcasters are doing 720p or 1080i. None that I know of is doing 1080p. Developing better TVs is nice and everything, but if you don't get the content providers to provide content I fail to see the point.

FULL HD tvs are available for how many years now? When will we have full hd available?

Yeah, I'll rush and buy a 3D TV to continue watching SD TV most of the time. NOT!


RE: I just don't believe in 3DTV
By therealnickdanger on 3/31/2010 8:52:13 AM , Rating: 2
The 60Hz 1080i content you see on TV is "full HD". It is up to your TV (assuming it's 1080p) to properly de-interlace the signal into 1080p24 (film) or 1080p30 (video).

http://www.hometheatermag.com/gearworks/1106gear/#


RE: I just don't believe in 3DTV
By danobrega on 3/31/2010 10:38:37 AM , Rating: 1
Sorry, FULL HD is 1080p. 1080i is even worse than 720p since it has less pixels per frame.

Although it does not make much sense to say: "My TV only supports 1080i", it does make sense to say "My favorite channel only supports 1080i". That code is actually missing one important number, which is the FPS.

Some channels broadcast a signal of 1080i/25. This signal is worse than 720p/25. 720p/25 is worse than 1080p/25. (in terms of bandwidth).

720p/25 = 1280*720*25 = 23040k Pixels per second.
1080i/25 = 1920*1080/2*25 = 25920k Pixels per second.
1080p/25 = 1920*1080*25 = 51840k Pixels per second.

The fact that your TV makes up some frames for actually displaying 60 FPS is irrelevant to the discussion.

Besides that, in my personal opinion interlaced video displays funny. I rather see a video in 720p/25 than 1080i/25.


RE: I just don't believe in 3DTV
By cmdrdredd on 3/31/2010 4:03:07 PM , Rating: 2
No... Interlaced vs progressive might have a place in what you're trying to say but 1920x1080 is ALWAYS more pixels than 1280x720. More pixels mean higher detail. You didn't mention motion, which is where Interlaced pictures display some problems.


3D TV
By obiwankenobi on 3/31/2010 7:46:29 AM , Rating: 2
as long as LG will not fix LCD prices




More blatant racism!
By ggordonliddy on 3/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: More blatant racism!
By blueboy09 on 3/30/2010 7:01:06 PM , Rating: 2
There's no humanity when money is involved, plain and simple. So what's 3 to 4 grand for a 3DTV, huh. Give me a break! My LG 1080 LCD TV may not have all the bells and whistles like these TV will have but it will save me the headaches I'm bound to get in the long run. Besides, it's highly unlikely that the price of 3D media will be the same as that of Blu-ray and I even consider that to be not cheap. I'll stick to my regular 2D TV thank you very much! - BLUEBOY


RE: More blatant racism!
By vcolon on 3/30/2010 8:10:22 PM , Rating: 2
Correct me if i'm wrong, but I remember in the 1980's watching 3d shows on my standard color tv. You would go to either mcdonalds, burger king, kfc etc, whoever was in the promotion, and get your red and blue shades. I remember the effects not being all that great, but nonetheless entertaining. The image on the tv without the glasses was doubled. So why can't they just do that now?


RE: More blatant racism!
By retrospooty on 3/30/2010 10:48:36 PM , Rating: 2
Thats pretty much exactly what they do now, they are just better at it these days.

I have seen it in a locl Best Buy(samsung LED 3DTV). Its really not all that great and I dont see it catching on. Its as good of 3d as I have seen, its just that 3D itself isnt all that great. 3d has been around since the 1960's and it never really caught on. It's just neat at first. After a while it becomes annoying. 3DTV won be any different.


RE: More blatant racism!
By Targon on 3/30/2010 11:20:46 PM , Rating: 2
There is a big difference between the way 3D is being treated today compared to in the past. The real key is that in the past, 3D was a few objects that would "extend" out from the scene, and of course, it never really caught on. The 3D of today is more about making the entire scene look like it is in 3D, which is why Avatar was so impressive.

Now, there are a number of things that come into play with the new 3D we are seeing. The first is the move to HDMI 1.4, which by itself would raise prices by a bit due to it being a new standard. Then you have the 240Hz technology, compared to the 60Hz you see in the $700 range(for 40 inch LCDs). And then you have the active shutter technology that talks to the glasses using wireless. All of these things together just make for a huge price premium on 3D TVs and BluRay players.

For BluRay itself, the reason it is so slow to catch on is that you first need a HDTV in the first place, a lack of education, and the fact that DVD players are selling for $50 or less while you still need to pay $150 or more for a BluRay player. As more older CRTs are replaced by HD panels, we will see more and more BluRay players sold. It really is a chicken and egg situation where BluRay won't sell without HDTVs, and the price for a HDTV is still a bit higher than an older conventional tube TV. $200 is the sweet spot for TV sales, and you don't see panels in the 27 inch range going for that just yet.


RE: More blatant racism!
By danobrega on 3/31/2010 7:05:47 AM , Rating: 3
Physical formats are dead, maybe not for collectors but I don't think they represent the main market. We want digital distribution.


RE: More blatant racism!
By johnr81 on 3/30/2010 11:41:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Thats pretty much exactly what they do now

As the previous post mentioned, it's not at all what they do now. From what I understand the 1st big technology you see are shutter glasses, like NVidia's 3D vision and what I believe a lot of the tv sets are planning on using. They essentially alternate images on the tv and alternately "shutter" one of the lenses. The downside of this is it cuts the refresh rate in half and brightness in half:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscope#Liquid_cr...

The other technology you see in the theaters is they actually display 2 pictures and wear polarized glasses that filter 1 image to each eye. The obvious downside is if the filtering for each eye isn't working perfect and cost for displaying 2 pictures simultaneously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscope#Linearly_...

The method the original poster mentioned is called anaglyphs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaglyph_image

Personally I think the 3d tech is much better than the old stuff. Now you don't lose resolution for a 3D picture and it's 2 true pics for your mind to see. I don't see people perpetually wearing 3D glasses, but if they can get the costs for a family down to a few hundred bucks or less I could see it coming down far enough where people use them when they want to watch a big movie, sporting event, game, etc.


RE: More blatant racism!
By phenimation on 3/31/2010 5:18:34 AM , Rating: 2
I have to wonder though, whether it will take off. It's annoying because i'm looking into purchasing a new TV now and i'm not sure whether to buy a 3D one. The prices aren't unreasonable. But i don't really see it catching on.

Those shutter glasses do cut the brightness significantly. I did notice it a lot when i went to see Avatar and took my glasses off fairly frequently to see the brilliant colours.

And Avatar was probably optimised for the 3D version, and i'm not sure how a sport event with 3D tacked on will look.


RE: More blatant racism!
By retrospooty on 3/31/2010 8:26:48 AM , Rating: 2
"As the previous post mentioned, it's not at all what they do now."

Uhh... sorry, you need to wear glasses so that your eyes take the 2 separate images and make it appear as one 3d image.

that is EXACTLY what has always happened. Different methodologies, but the same basic concept.

I encourage you to go to your local electronics store and try it as a demo... Its not going to catch on now any more than it did in the 60's. Neat at first, but after a while its just irritating to watch.


"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki