disolitude said:
Squilliam said:
You can't easily buy a polarised display can you? So whilst the technology of present 3D TVs and monitors are relying on shutter glasses it isn't as relevant. However its probably likely that polarised technology will be more compatible with consumer interest given the technology is more practical from an interface perspective when you have cheap 3D glasses vs expensive shutter tech which require batteries and are heavy.
What do you think? Polarised or Shutter for the near term 3-5 year mainstream 3D technology?
|
To be honest, 3D Vision glasses are not too heavy at all and they have a built in battery. But they do cost 200 bucks. Looking towards the future I think that shutter glasses will have more 3D marketshare in homes, while polarized ones will always be used almost exclusively in movie theaters.
Only LG has announced to be doing polarized displays so far...and I doubt another HD DVD vs Bluray war is about to break out over what 3D format broadcasts, games and movies are going to use.
|
The major issue with them is synchronisation and the time it takes for the shutters to open/close + how long it takes to display the image. This seriously limits the quantity of light which transmits through them. This is the reason why they recommend such high frame-rates for 3D enabled games on the PC.
I personally don't see how they both couldn't be supported at the same time for movies games and broadcast.
