We didn't need them in 1997 when ABC did their 3D week and NBC had that '3rd Rock' episode in 3D, We still need glasses for the new displays so what is the advantage in buying a 3DTV when a 15 year old CRT can do the same job?
shareBecause those 3d presentations weren't *really* in 3D, or were severely compromised versions of it. The 3rd Rock episode utilized an optical illusion called the Pulfrich effect, which requires the camera and/or objects to keep moving laterally. ABC's 3D week utilized the good old anaglyph glasses--the colored lenses deal.
The new 3D HDTVs provide true stereoscopy--the program is shot using two cameras side-by-side to mimic the viewer's eyes; the left-hand image is sent to the left eye, the right-hand image is sent to the right eye.
There were actually similar solutions back in the day of SD CRT TVs, where one would buy special boxes that attached to DVD players that sent signals to big clunky electronic shutter glasses. The TV would display the left-hand image, and the glasses' right lens would go opaque so only the left eye would see it, then vice versa. The problem was, given CRT's nature, the images sent out were at 60Hz and field-sequential--meaning that, at best, the image was half the resolution of DVD, and flickered annoyingly.
Today's 3D HDTVs work on the same principle, except that instead of 60Hz, it's 240Hz--better than the refresh rate of most HDTVs--and at up to full HD resolution. So you get the crisp picture of Blu-ray AND in 3D to boot. No funky red and blue or green or magenta tinting, no additional constraints on the moviemakers as to how to plan their shots, no flickering. It's not as good as the stuff you get in movie theaters that utilize polarization and dual simultaneous projected images, but it's as good as it gets without dramatically increasing the price for the technology: you'll notice that 3D HDTVs basically cost as much as last year's mid-high end consumer models at $2K-$3K.
Just as HDTV was an improvement on SDTV, just as Blu-ray is an improvement over DVD, this is all about being BETTER. 3D HDTV is BETTER than any other previous home video solution for watching 3D programming. It's not "doing the same job." It's doing it BETTER.
Would you personally buy a 3-D TV at this time, or would you hold off another year or so and see what happens?
My advice to others would be to wait a year or two, by which time 3D should be a standard feature of mid-to-high-end TVs, and the glasses (which run $100-$200 each) should also be more affordable; there just isn't enough content to make upgrading to 3D right now worthwhile for most, with only two Blu-rays utilizing the technology, and a couple of channels on DirecTV (that aren't even on all the time). Right now, 3D's for very early adopters (they've only been on the market for a few months) and gadget freaks, though I will say that the 3D TVs are among the best 2D TVs out there.
what would be the best game system to buy if it is just for one person who doesn't care about any of the accoutrements other than being able to play great games? The best right now, or maybe coming out shortly (if you've heard of anything upcoming).
This is actually a pretty tough question--I guess it depends on what sort of games this person plays and considers "great."
The big seller is the Wii: it's not in HD, and has the poorest graphics of the three major home consoles, but Nintendo's thrust has been about the gameplay, with its motion-sensing controllers giving players a more immersive experience, at least when the game is done right--there's a lot of "shovelware" (poor games cranked out for a quick buck) out there, but the games that *are* good (mostly games made by Nintendo itself) are addictive. The Wii appeals to kids (a lot of family-friendly games come out for Nintendo consoles) and "casual gamers," a segment of the gaming market that tend to be looked down upon by the "hardcore" gamers.
The XBox 360 is the oldest of the three consoles by about a year and has a more established "hardcore" gamer userbase and an active community of online players. The "Arcade" version of the XBox 360 console is the cheapest one you can buy at about $150, but that's somewhat of a compromised version of the console with only a wired (rather than wireless) controller and limited storage (important for saved games and downloadable content). XBoxes also have a reputation for breaking down (the infamous "Red Ring of Death," reportedly due to excessive heat causing some solder points to break apart), though the newest incarnation of the XBox 360, the "slim" version, has a failsafe that will turn off the console before it overheats. The XBox is probably the console that appeals the most to hardcore game players, though you'll also find many proponents of its rival...
...Sony's Playstation 3, which is more or less on par with the 360 when it comes to the quality of the games. Though it's only a year "younger" than the 360, and the 360 has had plenty of significant software/interface updates, there's something slicker and newer about its interface, its online community, and its online store. It has the potential for better graphics, and is starting to offer 3D games to go with the 3D TVs. The PS3 also doubles as a Blu-ray player, though both the PS3 and 360 have the ability to play back high definition video content offered through their online video purchase/rental stores and streaming over Netflix (The Wii also offers Netflix streaming, but not in HD).
It doesn't look like any of the three current-generation consoles will have successors anytime soon, even though they've been around for four or five years. I don't think there's much of a perception that they're "old" consoles yet (heck, they still make and sell Playstation 2's), and the manufacturers, which often sell the consoles at a loss in the first few years, want to make as much profit from them as they can. The Wii has expanded on its abilities over the years with add-ons such as the Wii Fit (a balance board the player stands on for some games) and the Wii Motion Plus (an add-on to the controller that makes the motion tracking more precise, necessary for some new games). The 360 and PS3 hope to take away some of Wii's success in the motion-sensing and casual gaming department with new peripherals for the fall: The Playstation Move, which basically is a direct copy of the Wii's controls (though the tech that makes them work is slightly different), and the XBox 360's Kinect, which uses a special camera array to detect the players' movements *without* the need for a controller.
So for a recommendation, I don't know what to tell you--the best person to ask is the person you're buying the video game system for.
hmmm
One eighth of the A.T.S Faction
hmmm
One eighth of the A.T.S Faction
hmmm
One seventh of the A.T.S Faction
hmmmm
One seventh of the A.T.S Faction