Gadgets

I had previously written, I’m getting a little annoyed with the strength of the push for 3D within the last year or so.  My proposed “$100 device” is exactly what Sony is selling, which makes the true cost of 3D much more transparent than I had previously stated.  And, they’re doing it for HALF THE PRICE I estimated!  In my previous article, I made SEVERAL errors in estimating prices, including the fact that I compared two TVs that weren’t exactly comparable…  In fact, the 3D Samsung, is the THINEST TV I have ever seen.  I know, because we had one at Camera Corner, which is why I’m writing this rebuttal to begin with.  If I had really done my homework, the price difference between 3D and non-3D (assuming that it’s time to upgrade your current system) is closer to $400 vs the $1500 I had estimated previously.

Normally, I’d be the guy to save the $400 if I didn’t really need or want the feature, but after USING 3DTV with a PS3, I am hooked!  It actually made a few games EASIER to play!  This is because, unlike movies, cameras in video games don’t need to be focused.  I, as a viewer, am free to look at whatever I want, and will see it clearly and precisely, exactly in the location I expect it to be in.  And I forgot to mention, you can ALWAYS turn the 3D features OFF, so you won’t be wasting money on extra glasses for your friends.

EDIT:  I’ve changed my mind on a few things since writing this…  Check out my new point-of-view HERE!

According to this article, Motorola is working on a 3D cell phone.  Pardon me, but isn’t this a bit excessive?  How about making me a phone that lasts more than 14 months, one that doesn’t drop calls, or one that is affordable without a company subsidizing the costs and locking down the features of the phone?

The whole 3D push is obscenely annoying to me.  The core of the 3D TV technology relies on shutter-glasses, and a synchronizing signal sent from the TV.  The TV displays a frame that is intended for the left eye, and a signal is sent to the glasses to block out the right eye.  Then the TV and Glasses swap.  In the end, you have a movie file that was rendered with each frame alternating eyes, and a TV capable of communicating which eye should be active to the glasses.  What pisses me off, is that the manufactures think they need to sell you more equipment to do this.

Let’s start with the TV.  This one here is a 50″ Samsung, and a great one at that.  Being an LED with lots of inputs, a sleek design, and 240 hertz, and only $700 more than a non-3D comparable set.  Now, let’s get a Blu-Ray player.  If you’re lucky, your existing player may get a software update that will allow 3D broadcast.  Just in case, let’s plan on buying a new one, for about $350.  Oh, and let’s not forget the glasses.  They’re only $200, and two pairs come with the TV, but if we have friends over, I’ll need to buy them glasses (since their glasses from another brand will not work with my TV), and if they bring their kids, I’ll need special glasses for them too…

Now, I understand the glasses…  There isn’t much of a way to get around them, but what’s with a TV AND a Blu-Ray player?  Is this really needed, or is the industry just afraid that HDTV sales are going to drop now that they appear to have just tapped the market?  Why can’t the industry just pick a pixel, they’ve got at least 921 thousand to choose from, and make a decision.  If the pixel is pure white, it’s a left eye picture, if the pixel is pure black, it’s a right eye picture…  Put a listening device between the Blue-Ray and the TV to tell your glasses how to react…  I think i can build that for about $100 vs the $1500 your investing in a new 3D system.

EDIT:  I’ve changed my mind on a few things since writing this…  Check out my new point-of-view HERE!