LifeStyle:

I can't understand why B&O is so often behind the time at the moment. Should we now buy the 10-46 with the current display and then changing it next year for the new Samsung 3D display which is then already one year old It seems as the days when B&O was ahead of time are gone for the moment....

Is that because of a sourcing arrangement do you think?  I wonder how Apple could release the iMac with the i7 and i5 before anyone else.  Can't B&O think of a deal which will allow them exclusivity with supplied products?  

Michael:

Can't B&O think of a deal...

Apple: we'll mass-produce and sell hundreds of thousands of these

B&O: we hand-make each product and sell hundreds

Why would anyone want to do an exclusive deal in this example? It's pretty obvious why Apple negotiated the deal.

However, you are mistaken - Apple weren't first with many of the more recent Intel chipsets. They were quite late to the party (for Apple) with the mobile versions of these processors.

Michael:

BTW CNet didn't like the Samsung 3D.  I'm waiting to see the Panasonic 3D as they are using plasma (where all others are LCD).  I wonder if B&O will source a different manufacturers panel in this instance and then transform it in to something really special.  

I went to the local big electronics store to help my father-in-law buy a new wireless router.  My son had told me I should check out the 3D TVs so after we got our real shopping done we went looking for the 3D TVs.  They had a fancy Samsung display with a dedicated couch, big signage and broken 3D glasses.  With the help of a sales person, we got one of the 3 sets of glasses to work and, quite frankly, I was underwhelmed (that's it?!?!). 

Then, the sales guy says, let me show you the Panasonic, it is waay better.  Around the corner, in a no frills setup, with the glasses under lock and key, was the Panny.  It was pretty cool, and, to my eyes (and my father-in-laws) much, much better than the Samsung.  Part of the difference could have been the content - the Samsung was showing some animated movie (forget which), while the Panny was showing some type of European travel show (probably specifically produced to show off the TV, it was like a 5 minute loop).  I guess I like reality in my realistic 3D images.

Anyway, I often disagree with CNet (too gadgety feature loving for me), but, to my eyes, the Panasonic was waay better than the Samsung.  Still not cool enough that I'd actually buy it.  I'll wait to see if this catches on, no need to be first to the party on this one... I think the glasses are a major roadblock, and I have no problem with B&O taking a wait and see approach on this.

So, if anybody is looking to buy a 3D TV, you owe it to yourself to look at the Panny before spending money on the Samsung.  I think they were similarly priced, but not sure since I wasn't really looking to buy one (if I recall correctly, the Panny was ~$2500 for a 40-inch).

Stan

I have to say that when I saw a demo loop on a 46" Samsung (C8000) I was blown away - I wasn't expecting the 3D effect to be quite so vivid or impressive! (The TV is also very pretty, wafer thin with a brushed "Titanium" thin frame - no prizes for guessing the inspiration, but pretty never the less. It would look very well wall mounted).

Would I but one to watch 3D content, if or when it arrives, no! However we very nearly did buy the 3D Samsung simply because it was so pretty. As the TV is stood in a corner rather than wall mounted we bought a 46" Panasonic G20 plasma instead.

Do you really want an amazing 3D experience?? Turn off the BV and see to your wife/friend/husband eyes, your children playing, your prefered girl/boy neighbor nextdoor or just the city/beach/country/rain through your window!!

Untill 3D is available without glasses, I see it as a niche format. I actually don't have 3D vision anyway (amblyopia) and neither does my daughter. This is commoner than people think and will always limit the market. I had to wear the daft glasses at the cinema simply so the picture was not all blurred - a complete pain!

I'm holding out for 4D. 

TripEnglish:

I'm holding out for 4D. 

Yup - supposedly you can re-experience your youth in full surround time (without glasses, as I was at the time). It's supposed to be much more realisitic than just watching re-runs of the programs you watched at the time!

denon's new range includes 3d blu ray players at very affordable prices too

my brother has an optima 3d projector , unfortunately there's nothing to watch on it ...yet :)

Watch out for stereoscopic imaging. No glasses required.

You see, I''m reading tired of so many posts with everyone asking 'aww man, when is B&O bringing out a 3D tv. They are always waaaay behind'

Would you want a a B&O 3D tv now with glasses? What if in a couple of years time they were to release a version with no glasses required? Would you be dissappointed having bought a £10,000 which only lasted a couple of years? I think so.

Come on, give B&O some credit!!

I wish they could launch a 3D flat TV that allows us to watch our movies, without using 3D glasses.

Should we wait for the BV 10-46 MK II that may incorporate 3D panel ? Humm...

Cheers,

Guy

i bought some 3d glasses from amazon the other day www.loreo.com

they have several 3d stereoscopic images you can view

also the elements on ipad is too

amazing

scottyltd:

Come on, give B&O some credit!!

Here? No way.

Peter :

Untill 3D is available without glasses, I see it as a niche format. I actually don't have 3D vision anyway (amblyopia) and neither does my daughter. This is commoner than people think and will always limit the market. I had to wear the daft glasses at the cinema simply so the picture was not all blurred - a complete pain!

40 years ago Nimslo brought out lenticular stereo photography. After several failures and selling -on of the technology, Fuji are the latest company to try to make this viable for stereo photos without glasses. There are several (expensive) stereo computer VDU monitors available using this technology, and no doubt television will follow on the same basis. However, you need to sit at a fixed position and distance from the screen, so it's doubtful whether this technology will ever be suitable for general 3D viewing without glasses by several people in a large room. 

The very significant minority who have amblyopia (and I'm another) can only appreciate the 3D depth of field effect by moving the head or image slightly to see the parallax when viewing lenticular pictures and, as Peter says, wearing 3D glasses just to get rid of the double image blur in the cinema when you can't actually appreciate the 3D effect really is a complete pain. I wont be having a glasses-dependent 3D TV in my household any time soon.

Graham