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.

[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.

[MartinJones]

I'll take two.

[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.

[GMichael]

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



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



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.



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.

Thanks T.

Can you 'spain to me the difference between film and video source? Is that analog vs digital?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Thanks T.

Can you 'spain to me the difference between film and video source? Is that analog vs digital?

Easy..Film camera's use film, and video camera's use video tape. Film has very difference visual characteristic than video tape. Color saturation is more distinct and profound with film.

Today film camara's can be digital or film based. One shoots the source and it is recorded as a series of 0 and 1 and stored on a hard drive or server. The other stores the visual source on film that a lab develops into prints.

[pixelthis]

Easy..Film camera's use film, and video camera's use video tape. Film has very difference visual characteristic than video tape. Color saturation is more distinct and profound with film.

Today film camara's can be digital or film based. One shoots the source and it is recorded as a series of 0 and 1 and stored on a hard drive or server. The other stores the visual source on film that a lab develops into prints.

GOD, what an ignoramus.
"FILM" cameras use just that ...film. This is some kind of emulsion, and is basically what EDISON invented.
Digital is VIDEO, there is NO such thing as "digital" film, all digital
is recorded on either a hard drive, tape, or some kind of memory.
THERE is NO such thing as "digital" film, there is however digital VIDEO.
and color saturation, etc, while good with film, is also good with video of decent quality. Sometimes you can't tell the difference between HD VIDEO and film, even experts are fooled
sometimes. NON EXPERTS like TALKY are fooled all of the time.

[GMichael]

Easy..Film camera's use film, and video camera's use video tape. Film has very difference visual characteristic than video tape. Color saturation is more distinct and profound with film.

Today film camara's can be digital or film based. One shoots the source and it is recorded as a series of 0 and 1 and stored on a hard drive or server. The other stores the visual source on film that a lab develops into prints.

OK, so film camera's are for pro use, while video is for commercial or personal use?

[pixelthis]

Thanks T.

Can you 'spain to me the difference between film and video source? Is that analog vs digital?

HE CAN'T "spain" what he doesnt understand.

[pixelthis]

Thanks T.

Can you 'spain to me the difference between film and video source? Is that analog vs digital?

ONE MORE THING, all film is analog, but not all video is digital.
Video used to be analog exclusively, and lagged a great deal
behind film. YOU COULD TELL THE DIFF between tv shot on film
and tv shot on video.
TODAY some HD is shot on tape, but mostly hard drives and
other media are used because they are instant access, and easier to work with.
FILM , on the other hand, has always been "HD".
Even today HD VIDEO HAS A HARD TIME KEEPING UP.

[pixelthis]

[QUOTE=GMichael;363429]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?

THEY are the same, and are interchangable. THE panel, or whatever, "refreeshes" when a new frame is painted.
THE frequency is the refresh rate.
Refresh rate is actually an obsolete term

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

THEY are the same, if a set is 60hz, then you see sixty frames
a sec. UNLESS you have one of the last interlaced sets on the planet, in which case you get 60 fields, each field being
interlaced with another to create one frame.
THIS IS where reading instead of experiencing mess you up.
IN AN INTERLACED SET, one "field" is displayed, and already fading when the second is interlaced with it. THIS IS why you
lose up to half your res whenever theres movement, the pic just falls apart, which is what I HAVE BEEN SAYING.
In a sixty hz progressive scan set you get a full 60 frames, either
the pic comes that way or two "fields from a 1080i pic are
deinterlaced .
A HUNDRED and twenty hz set produces a higher freq picture by
interpolating fake frames between real ones, on the fly.
THIS IS TO GIVE SMOOTHER MOTION, and works pretty well.
BUT when you do the same with 240hz, THE PIC COMES ACROSS looking like cheap video, we just don't have the tech
to create 75% of the picture on the fly, which makes 240hz a gimmick

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

BUYING a set with 240hz will eliminate "motion" blur, just like
nuking a city kills the lawyers. YOU WANT your beautiful film
to look like cheap computer video, go with 240hz, where 75% of the pic is interpolated(60hzx4= 240hz)

[QUOTE]

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?

.
THE LOWER the frame rate the
"chopier" the video, but sometimes neither has anything to do with the other.
YOU WILL never get rid of "motion" blur, its mostly used by
plasma fanboys to slam LCD, but "motion" blur occurs even in
real life when your eyes can't catch up to motion sometimes.
ITS A FACT OF LIFE.