Dimenco No Glasses 3D TV kickstarter

[dissentowner]

So this company believes they will be shipping out no glasses 3-d tv's by the end of the year. They are quite a bit short though of their goal. Kind of small as well, 39 inches. Hope they succeed.
http://www.cnet.com/news/glasses-fre...n-kickstarter/
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...r-899?ref=live

[SebC]

WANT!

Looks like Dimenco is closely tied with Phillips, who already produced something like this (at a much higher price, and using a goofy format).

[bluejays]

Not to sidetrack the thread, but what's the point of kickstarter really? Why don't these companies who are looking to make a profit, list on the venture exchange or something along those lines rather than waiting for nice people to fund them for free? I can understand something artsy or a student doing something like kickstarter, but a company???

[SebC]

Originally Posted by fleury

Not to sidetrack the thread, but what's the point of kickstarter really? Why don't these companies who are looking to make a profit, list on the venture exchange or something along those lines rather than waiting for nice people to fund them for free? I can understand something artsy or a student doing something like kickstarter, but a company???

Because consumers are willing to invest without getting equity in return. Why would you give up equity if someone will just pre-pay for a product that's still in development?

To me, the better question is "why are people buying into kickstarters?"

Having said that, I do think there's a lot of value in Kickstarter for things that are easily pirated.

[Thor]

Getting supported at kickstarter gets you attention from real venture capitalists, its a great 1st step to show you have a lot of interest, the money is honestly a side show to the exposure and ability to show your idea has real potential for serious investors.

[You Need a Thneed]

I still haven't understood what the appeal for 3D TVs is.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I still haven't understood what the appeal for 3D TVs is.

Immersion. 3D is far more immersive than 2D.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I still haven't understood what the appeal for 3D TVs is.

Have you watched many 3D Blu-Rays?

I watched the Bobbitt on my TV in 3D and thought it looked great. If I could do it without glasses, with as many people over as I wanted all enjoying it, it would be awesome.

Unless you have no interest in 3D generally, glasses-free HD 3D TV should be exciting to anyone.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Have you watched many 3D Blu-Rays?

I watched the Bobbitt on my TV in 3D and thought it looked great. If I could do it without glasses, with as many people over as I wanted all enjoying it, it would be awesome.

Unless you have no interest in 3D generally, glasses-free HD 3D TV should be exciting to anyone.

There's a joke in there somewhere.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by SebC

Immersion. 3D is far more immersive than 2D.

Originally Posted by Mike F

Have you watched many 3D Blu-Rays?

I watched the Bobbitt on my TV in 3D and thought it looked great. If I could do it without glasses, with as many people over as I wanted all enjoying it, it would be awesome.

Unless you have no interest in 3D generally, glasses-free HD 3D TV should be exciting to anyone.

With possibly an exception or two, the 3D movies I've watched would have looked much better and clearer as 2D movies. I don't want to be immersed in that.

Right now, 3D is mostly used to add a gimmick to crappy movies.

[SebC]

To me 2D looks like a movie... 3D looks like a world. 3D TVs are good for more than movies though, there's games and still photography too.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

With possibly an exception or two, the 3D movies I've watched would have looked much better and clearer as 2D movies. I don't want to be immersed in that.

Right now, 3D is mostly used to add a gimmick to crappy movies.

Did you watch them on a TV? If so was the 3D TV active (i.e. clunky glasses which shutter on and off) or passive (i.e. glasses like the theatre)?

If it was a passive 3D TV, you wouldn't have been watching 1080p 3D, only 720, which would account for the poorer picture.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Did you watch them on a TV? If so was the 3D TV active (i.e. clunky glasses which shutter on and off) or passive (i.e. glasses like the theatre)?

If it was a passive 3D TV, you wouldn't have been watching 1080p 3D, only 720, which would account for the poorer picture.

It's more like 1080i.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Did you watch them on a TV? If so was the 3D TV active (i.e. clunky glasses which shutter on and off) or passive (i.e. glasses like the theatre)?

If it was a passive 3D TV, you wouldn't have been watching 1080p 3D, only 720, which would account for the poorer picture.

If it looks bad on the theatre screen, why would it look good on a TV?

also, I've walked past displays for 3d TVs in stores and put on the glasses. I can still see both pictures in each eye. It's not a 1080i problem. It's a "this technology still needs a lot of work" problem.

Even if the technology was perfect, 3d doesn't add anything to the experience anyway. For the most part, it would still be a cheesy gimmick.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

If it looks bad on the theatre screen, why would it look good on a TV?

also, I've walked past displays for 3d TVs in stores and put on the glasses. I can still see both pictures in each eye. It's not a 1080i problem. It's a "this technology still needs a lot of work" problem.

Even if the technology was perfect, 3d doesn't add anything to the experience anyway. For the most part, it would still be a cheesy gimmick.

I admit a lot of the 3D movies are more about visual effect rather than a good plot line, and it's too bad as that wears thin after a while. A good movie with 3D is the way to go and a step closer to a holodeck.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Even if the technology was perfect, 3d doesn't add anything to the experience anyway. For the most part, it would still be a cheesy gimmick.

3D is as much or little of a gimmick as color or HD were gimmicks.

None were necessary, per se, but whatever brings an experience closer to real life adds to immersion, IMO.

[Flamenspiel]

I would not put 3D up there in significance with a major evolutionary change like SD to HD or BW to color. 3D has been around for about 30 years and it still is not that pervasive, it's cool but not necessary. Whereas, no one goes back to BW or SD, 3d is more like a specialized application that you turn on or off when needed. It's not always useful.

[Mike F]

Modern 3D is much, much different than the 3D from 30 years ago.

As for color and HD, if you look into the development history of both, they took a long time before they were the standard.

Once the technology limitation requiring glasses for home viewing are overcome, and the choice for 2D vs 3D is down to only preference, I expect 3D to become the overwhelming standard.

[You Need a Thneed]

I don't expect 3d to become an overwhelming standard, ever, really.

More widespread than now, sure.

Right now, more people will take the brighter, sharper 2D picture over the dimmer, duller 3D picture.

[You Need a Thneed]

Also, technology is a long ways away from glasses free 3D TVs that aren't limited in some way. I don't know how it even possible without using a completely different display technology than we have now, to show 3d that looks even close to real to more than one person sitting in a very specific spot.