Glasses-less 3D TV for $20K

[Smokey]

Nissho Electronics in Japan announced the BDL5231-3D2R today, a 52-inch 3D TV that can do 3D without the glasses. The BDL5231-3D2R is scheduled went on sale in Japan today, carrying a hefty price tag of $20,850.

The TV has the following main features:

■LCD panel with full HD resolution
■60Hz refresh rate
■2,000:1 contrast ratio
■700cd/m2 brightness
■8ms response time

No word on whether Nissho plans to sell the BDL5231-3D2R in the U.S.

http://www.explore3dtv.com/blog/entr...es-Free-3D-TV/

[harley .guy07]

Great thing it does not require the stupid glasses but the price tag is a tad over my spending limit for a tv. But good engineering though, they are going in the right direction.

[bobsticks]

The specs and price suck but, yes, they are headed in right direction.

[Robert-The-Rambler]

It will be the standard and sub $1000 1080p sets will be available. Count me in when it is about $500 for a cheap brand like Insiginia in the 40" range whether it be LCD or Plasma.

[GMichael]

I'll take two. Do they come in a high gloss?

[Robert-The-Rambler]

I'll take two. Do they come in a high gloss?

I'll take my Viewsonic XGA DLP 3D projector WITHOUT THE GLASSES for now......

It probably is awful.

[Woochifer]

I guess now that you own a HDTV, we'll be seeing mostly 3D and Blu-ray threads from you?

This set looks like nothing more than early adopter fodder. It will be toast once the market leaders start introducing their glasses-free 3D sets.

The main issue with glasses-free 3D sets will be with how they handle 2D sources. With the current crop of 3D TVs, they function just like any other HDTV when viewing 2D material. But, depending on how the optics are done with glasses-free 3D sets, I can easily see those approaches creating problems with non-3D sources.

As I've been saying for months now, the 3D feature will be standard issue on most HDTVs very soon (and Blu-ray players and set-top boxes). 3D TVs are rapidly approaching price parity with equivalent 2D models, and the glasses-free feature will be the only way to prop up the price points on 3D TVs.

[pixelthis]

As I've been saying for months now, the 3D feature will be standard issue on most HDTVs very soon (and Blu-ray players and set-top boxes). 3D TVs are rapidly approaching price parity with equivalent 2D models, and the glasses-free feature will be the only way to prop up the price points on 3D TVs.[/QUOTE]

NOT really, the price is still way too high, too high for most to opt into this gimmick(well north of two grand).
What is a guy with six kids going to say? Take turns?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

With a 60hz refresh rate, and 8 millisecond panel response time, ghosting will be an issue on this set. I noticed they have not mention viewing cone dimensions - a HUGE problem with glasses free sets.

[bfalls]

I remember seeing a Pioneer flat panel when they first came out for around $22,000. Wait a few years. Like Sir T and Woof said, how will it handle 2D.

[pixelthis]

I remember seeing a Pioneer flat panel when they first came out for around $22,000. Wait a few years. Like Sir T and Woof said, how will it handle 2D.

LIKE any 60hz set. DUH.
a 3D set has to be 120hz at least to be viable (60hz for each side).
Most video on the planet is 60hz.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

LIKE any 60hz set. DUH.
a 3D set has to be 120hz at least to be viable (60hz for each side).
Most video on the planet is 60hz.

Most video on this planet has no native refresh rate, that is a display perimeter. Video in and of itself is based on frame rates, not refresh rates.

[MartinJones]

I'll take two.

[pixelthis]

Most video on this planet has no native refresh rate, that is a display perimeter. Video in and of itself is based on frame rates, not refresh rates.

GUESS you didn't have GOOGLE IN FRONT OF YOU.
The "refresh" rate is the same as the "frame" rate. If a
picture is 60 fps(frames per second) it "refreshes" at a rate of
once every 60th of a second.
ONE IS THE SAME AS THE OTHER, and you need to figure this out.

[pixelthis]

ANYWAY, any 3D set with glasses has to have at least 120hz
frame rate. For 2d it makes up every other line of a 60hz picture.
FOR "3D" you need 60hz for each side.
THERE have been 240hz 2d sets out there, and most reviewers
claim that they look like video , even with film content, which
is reasonable since they "make up" 75% of their picture!
WHICH IS GETTING TO THE POINT OF REDICULOUS.
But I DIGRESS...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

GUESS you didn't have GOOGLE IN FRONT OF YOU.
The "refresh" rate is the same as the "frame" rate. If a
picture is 60 fps(frames per second) it "refreshes" at a rate of
once every 60th of a second.
ONE IS THE SAME AS THE OTHER, and you need to figure this out.

When it comes to all things audio or video, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. First, there is no such thing as 60fps ANYWHERE in film or video. Film is based on 24fps, and video 30fps. Refresh rates refer to how many times the display draws the data on the screen. Frame rates refer to how fast the entire frame is shown on the screen. These two processes are quite different.

Now just to show you how stupid you are, this is from wikipedia:

This is distinct from the measure of frame rate in that the refresh rate includes the repeated drawing of identical frames, while frame rate measures how often a video source can feed an entire frame of new data to a display.

As you can see idiot, the two are quite different processes, and perhaps somebody needs to introduce you to google. This way we do not have to read your oversimplified, inaccurate responses and explanations of things you know nothing about.

[Hairsonfire]

When it comes to all things audio or video, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. First, there is no such thing as 60fps ANYWHERE in film or video. Film is based on 24fps, and video 30fps. Refresh rates refer to how many times the display draws the data on the screen. Frame rates refer to how fast the entire frame is shown on the screen. These two processes are quite different.

Now just to show you how stupid you are, this is from wikipedia:

This is distinct from the measure of frame rate in that the refresh rate includes the repeated drawing of identical frames, while frame rate measures how often a video source can feed an entire frame of new data to a display.

As you can see idiot, the two are quite different processes, and perhaps somebody needs to introduce you to google. This way we do not have to read your oversimplified, inaccurate responses and explanations of things you know nothing about.

Hey Pix - why ever even post here?

[pixelthis]

Hey Pix - why ever even post here?

You got me.
I WONDER how long the silly little man is going to sit there smugly until he figures out that what HE said is the exact thing I
said!
FOR ALL practical purposes, really.
LOOK at the "frame" rate and you can be pretty confident that the picture refreshes at that rate, the frame rate which is usually 60
frames , if it wasnt 60 frames, then the video would not be 60hz.
IF IT WASNT 60 frames, then why does a 120hz (fps) set have
120fps? I THOUGHT sure it was by doubling the frame rate of 60fps (by interpolating a made up line between the real lines).
GEE, I READ ALL OF THIS STUFF, come here, and this
clueless "genius " contradicts everything I HAVE READ, EVERYWHERE.
What fun.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You got me.
I WONDER how long the silly little man is going to sit there smugly until he figures out that what HE said is the exact thing I
said!
FOR ALL practical purposes, really.
LOOK at the "frame" rate and you can be pretty confident that the picture refreshes at that rate, the frame rate which is usually 60
frames , if it wasnt 60 frames, then the video would not be 60hz.
IF IT WASNT 60 frames, then why does a 120hz (fps) set have
120fps? I THOUGHT sure it was by doubling the frame rate of 60fps (by interpolating a made up line between the real lines).
GEE, I READ ALL OF THIS STUFF, come here, and this
clueless "genius " contradicts everything I HAVE READ, EVERYWHERE.
What fun.

Wrong again stupid. Pix, you are a tragedy. Are you so ignorant that when your information is pointed out as wrong, you still stick with your wrong information? The only thing your comments prove is that you cannot read, or you don't understand what you are reading.

ALL film has a frame rate of 24fps...ALL FILM. Programs shot with video cameras shoot at 30fps..ALL VIDEO. There is nothing out there..NOTHING out there that has a 60fps rate...NOTHING! The frame rates have nothing to do with refresh rates.

With a film projector the frames move through the projector at 24fps. The projector displays or flashes one frame twice or three times which means it has a refresh rate of 48hz(24x2) or 72hz(24x3).

ALL Bluray disc are master at 24fps. Since there are no multiples of that for a television with a 60hz refresh rate, 3:2 pull down must be used. For a television with a 120hz refresh, one frame is flashed(or repeated) 5 times which equals to 120hz(24x5=120).

Once again(so that it penetrates your profoundly thick skull), the refresh rate, and the frame rate are two different things. Once again, this from Wikipedia:

The refresh rate (most commonly the "vertical refresh rate", "vertical scan rate" for CRTs) is the number of times in a second that a display hardware draws the data. This is distinct from the measure of frame rate in that the refresh rate includes the repeated drawing of identical frames, while frame rate measures how often a video source can feed an entire frame of new data to a display.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refresh_rate

Not only do I contradict your inaccurate information, so does Wikipedia. Are you going to say it is wrong too?

Do you realize that if we used 60fps, the cost of film(or digital storage) would be so high you could not make a movie at a reasonable cost? No, you don't realize this, it would require that you actually think for a change.

[pixelthis]

The 30fps is true, for interlaced video.
THERE are 60 fields, each one comprising half a frame,
one is displayed, than the other, giving a frame rate
of 30fps, but this is for interlaced video.
PROGRESSIVE video, which the entire world is using now,
paints one line after another. If a set is 60hz than it paints a
picture 60 times a sec, refreshes 60 times a sec.
If a 1080p 60hz set only showed 30fps video, it would be a 1080p 30hz set.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The 30fps is true, for interlaced video.

You still can't get it right. 30fps goes for both interlaced and deinterlaced video. Now you are mixing up frames with fields.

THERE are 60 fields, each one comprising half a frame,
one is displayed, than the other, giving a frame rate
of 30fps, but this is for interlaced video.

You still have not gotten this right. There are two fields for each frame with interlaced video, not 60. Each field within the frame is sequentially displayed on the screen.

PROGRESSIVE video, which the entire world is using now,
paints one line after another. If a set is 60hz than it paints a
picture 60 times a sec, refreshes 60 times a sec.
If a 1080p 60hz set only showed 30fps video, it would be a 1080p 30hz set.

Painting a picture, and refresh rate is the same thing knucklehead. Secondly, a set does not change spec just because the frame rates change. If a 1080p 60hz set only showed a 30fps video, it is still a 1080p 60hz set.

The only thing you know more than the rest of us is how to get the wrong answer 100% of the time.

[Smokey]

Now you guys starting to confuse me

You still can't get it right. 30fps goes for both interlaced and deinterlaced video.

I thought deinterlaced video (progressive) have 60 frame per second.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Now you guys starting to confuse me



I thought deinterlaced video (progressive) have 60 frame per second.

Nope, 30fps is just that. The refresh rate is 60hz for most televisions.

[GMichael]

Hi T,

I think I get what you are saying. Films are recorded at 30 frames per second, which is not the same thing as saying that a display has a refresh rate of 30 (or 60, 120, 240...)Hz.

My question is, how do these correlate to each other?

Part 1) How does fps compare to Hz? Does 30 fps work out to 60, 120, 240 Hz, or is there no relationship?

Part 2) Does buying a TV with 240 or 480 Hz make a difference in motion blur if the 30fps is less than those?

Part 3) Does the recording rate affect motion blur at all, or would it just make the film look more choppy if the rate was lower?
Thanks for the info.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Hi T,

I think I get what you are saying. Films are recorded at 30 frames per second, which is not the same thing as saying that a display has a refresh rate of 30 (or 60, 120, 240...)Hz.

Actually Gman, film uses 24fps, and video sources use 30fps.

My question is, how do these correlate to each other?

Part 1) How does fps compare to Hz? Does 30 fps work out to 60, 120, 240 Hz, or is there no relationship?

There really is no relationship. Frame rates are produced by camera's, and refresh rates are used by display devices.

Part 2) Does buying a TV with 240 or 480 Hz make a difference in motion blur if the 30fps is less than those?

To be honest, 240hz and 480hz are just marketing on steroids. 120hz is really all you need in the end. Motion blur is caused by the pixels themselves, and no refresh rate will change that much. You can use video processing to mitigate motion blur and it can be quite effective if properly implemented.

Part 3) Does the recording rate affect motion blur at all, or would it just make the film look more choppy if the rate was lower?
Thanks for the info.

Yes the frame rates do effect motion blur, which is why Peter Jackson is using 48fps for the Hobbit, and James Cameron is looking to shoot Avatar 2 at 60fps. 48fps will "perceptively" eliminate blurring, but 60fps eliminates it altogether.