Will the move to 3D Tech Help Plasma Tech?

I voted no, because 2D isn't perfected and the jump the 3D may make things worse.

+1

i agree with the 2nd and 3rd post. tv manufacturer's like panny and sammy need to work out the kinks with '09 models first. and lcd manufacturers need to get on the ball, too. how well is 3d going to work off axis? especially for lcd?

The only way it would help is if plasma did a better job at 3D than the LCD/LED manufacturers. That might very well be the case, but we will have to see. As far as 3D hurting 2D I would imagine the opposite. 3D seems to require almost perfect motion resolution and good processing. One would imagine that would translate well when used for 2D purposes. People assume that because companies are working on 3D, they're not working on other things like black level. Panasonic has been working with 2D all this time and that didn't make them jump to get Kuro blacks. I'm not sure how 3D is going to change that, and it does appear that Panasonic blacks are even better this year. The only question is whether 3D will affect pricing. If it does, than its going to be a problem. If prices are similar or better than last years plasma, then it may be a good year for plasma.

I'm thinking it's too soon to tell. According to D-Nice, 3-D plasmas will be more expensive. I'm not sure exactly how they'll compete in the 3-D market considering Mitsu DLPs with 3-D are now under $1k. They'll have to do something amazing with it to justify the price if they cost more and bring the tech down to their lower models quick if they want to take over as the 3-D kings. That said, I still think consumer 3-D feels like a gimmick at present. IMAX etc... are great though.

Plasma has to go with 3D for all the dumbos out there that are dumb enough already to buy LCD.

You've got to capture a certain percentage of the dumbo market for the technology to survive.

Well if plasma were to decide not to do 3D and LCD and DLP were the only ones utilizing it, then that would be the death nil for plasma. LCD makers can say not only do they have brighter pictures, but they also have 3D. Plasma would've probably have been in big trouble if they didn't do 3D.

of course not - for this reason.

There may be ancillary benefits of developing 3D - but you could do the same things at a cheaper cost by continuing to focus improving 2D and not spread resources around on gimmicks.

I voted "No" because in my travels around CES on Thursday, the LCD displays' 3D brightness was far better than the plasmas' somewhat dull display.

2D plasma already suffers in brightness comparisons, to those (the majority?) that want a bright, contrasty display. 3D, so far, makes it worse.

What if there were autostereoscopic Full HD 3D-TVs and we could be rid of those silly little glasses? Would it be worth it then? How much 3D content will I miss during 2010 on my 2D PDP?

how does it suffer? is this your opinion? because led tvs have more brightness than is ideal. that extra brightness some people like cause eyestrain and fatigue in certain conditions. it really makes me wonder about why some people like lcd techonology when i've had a couple friends over to check out my samsung plasma and they both agreed it looked best with dynamic contrast/vivid mode on. not only did the picture look horrible but it was too bright even for daytime setting.

From what i have read, Panasonics 3D implementation is one of the best, if not the best, we'll see in 2010.
This could help Panasonic for 2010.

http://hcc.techradar.com/blogs/team-...ma-tv-07-01-10

"The 3D screen itself looks like a regular PDP. It’s not the slimmest TV you’ll find but it’s probably the one that offers the greatest (subjective) depth.
I watched a variety of clips (both animated and real life) and was blown away by the illusion of dimensionality it delivered.
3D images were smooth and artefact-free, and the screen size was very comfortable.
By way of comparison, I went on to sit through some 3D demonstrations on LCD TVs several days later which struggled to move images back and forth on the depth plane, introducing a variety of headache-inducing artefacts in the process."



Which fares better: the theatrical or Blu-ray 3D version?

"First things first, it should be noted that the Avatar comparison alluded to in the headline above is actually of the film's second trailer -- the three minute 30 second spot which played up the heavy action angle.
But while visiting the Panasonic booth at this year's CES convention in Las Vegas, Nevada, I happened to catch a presentation where the company was showing off its new 3D Blu-ray player and television by screening the trailer in its native format.
Having seen the film itself in 3D, this exercise in promotion got me thinking: In a shot for shot comparison, which 3D version of Avatar looks better -- the in-theater or in-home experience? I pushed my way through the gathered crowd, slipped on the crazy looking glasses and was surprised by what I saw.

Upon exiting the film, I immediately became one of those evangelizers singing the praises of James Cameron's use of 3D. "It's not so much about the cheap pop out moments," I would tell anyone who was listening. "It's about creating depth." And I still stand by that description as high praise for the technology. However, the 3D experience I had with Panasonic's home theater equipment was far superior to what I witnessed in theater.
Perhaps it was the smaller screen or the fact that I was standing much closer to it, but I truly did feel immersed in the film's setting"

http://uk.gear.ign.com/articles/105/1059684p1.html

5 years from now people will be looking at the 3D glasses included with the set as if they were this:

This is simply Panasonic's way of rolling out another nickel & dime feature each year to hopefully keep buyers on the upgrade-mill.

Perhaps I will spend another $7750 for a 3D-OLED display someday but will not be enticed into buy another 1080p PDP that I have to wear 3D glasses to watch.

This preview confirms the technological advantages of plasma with 3D.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/...y-or-not.ars/2


But I doubt this will significantly affect the relative market share of Plasma.

3D porn is the wave of the future...just my 2 cents

The article you refrenced seems to provide a rather "lukewarm" endorsement for PDPs equipped w/3D technology:

"Panasonic's 3D plasma displays were the first ones I looked at, and I liked the effect well enough to where I could see using it for some movies."

"The bad news for the entire consumer electronics industryfrom the makers of Blu-ray players and panels to the broadcasters who are preparing 3D contentis that none of the 3D TVs coming to market this year are so compelling that cash-strapped consumers are going to pay a premium for the tech, much less ditch their current TV and upgrade. The effect just isn't that goodagain, at it's very best it's comparable to a 3D movie in theaters. And the fact that you have to wear glasses in your own living room will turn off a ton of people."

It was only a matter of time before manufacturers would latch onto 3D for the next wave of products.

However- these products will need a lot of "seasoning" first and the price will also make or break this new technology.

1.) I also look at it this way: Even if all the required 3D technology becomes mainstream, who here will be donning the 3D glasses just to watch the nightly news or the local weather station or some old movie that is being shown on tv- commercials and all?

(Not to mention the small percentage of people who cannot view 3D content or get sick from viewing such content.)

2.) And what of the 3D media needed to play on these sets and players? Is everyone going to run out and get 3D versions of their movies that they already own?

(Just like the question of "upgrading" all your regular DVD collection to Blu-ray versions. In the end isn't it about the story/plot of the movie as opposed to seeing every pore and nose hair of the actors on screen that is more important?)

Also here is a thought that I haven't seen much discussion on yet:

3.) Why can't we have an "add-on" or adapter for existing technology that will allow regular (recent HDTVs) to show 3D content when wearing those sunglasses inside?

Just curious if this was explored in the past by anyone or manufacturer.

Yes theres no notable added expense and live sports will rock as the many who have seen it reported, and it seem that Plasma as a tech does 3D perceptually better at least for now. Its basically free so why wouldn't it help. As far as paying for pay per view sports in 3D If I want it I will if not I'll pass, but the Plasma HDTV sets of the future will all have it.

Concur.

Not only that... Putting on those 3-D glasses does wonders for a non-Kuro's "marginal" black levels.

That said, it will take a full year for the broadcast and BluRay software to percolate sufficiently to generate any real demand for 3-D panels.

The key here is 3D will improve. To levels that will be mind blowing. For the first time you'll be looking through a window. The effect will be astounding, especially and earlier in the games arena, because they control trillions of polygons and will be able to effect focus depending on where you look. Game software doesn't have the limited focal range of the Camera in regards to focusing on up close and far away objects in the same frame, but even lens for cameras will improve. I can't wait! its 3 to five years away from being mind blowing and 5-10 years from a 1 inch Ultra HD OLED for each eye in a lightweight eye glasses gaming system for $299.95 that will be like "Being There" when playing games. One things for sure 3D Games of 10 years from now will kick royal as........holy crap I'm ranting.......whats the big backlash on 3D about. In the end you'll pay maybe $25 to get state of the art 3D. There were more than a few at CES who said live sport looked INCREDIBLE in 3D and the best they have ever seen. Most people have seen 3D in theaters that has objects between the viewer and the screen, this is a tad unnatural for the eyes, when you see from the screen and deeper only view your eyes will adjust and it's KILLER just like the multitude at CES that saw the Olympics Live were very impressed and they'd see all other 3D technologies this was the best by far. If you can't stand it turn off 3D = state of the art 2D, and a lot will, I know I want it and don't know why anyone wouldn't want it. Doubling brightness on current TV Sets can and will be done in one calender year if thats what the public wants, You will in 2-4 years have 3D @ D65, bright 1080P for games and live television. The shutter glasses are capable of total isolating the view of each eye and brighting the image and calibrating the set will be simple. And then your living inside of of GRID 2 in killer 3D. , finally the UFO revers engineer has filter down to us end users, thank your government for capturing a UFO in Roswell, NM and taking 62 years to throw you a crum. This is simple evolution technology.....im ranting again.........r

Will the move to 3D Tech help Plasma?

No - so far as I know, the only PDP 3DTV announced for the USA is by Panasonic. Samsung and LG, both who sell PDPs have only announced LCD 3DTVs