So, anyone own a 3d tv and a ps3? how is it?

I play GT5 with the logitech GT25 wheel and seat with a nice 46" Sony Bravia 3D TV with the shutter LCD glasses and it does feel like you are wearing tinted glasses (as the screen gets rather dim) although playing with the brightness and contrast does improve it.

The 3D does make the game come alive as you can judge distances much better, you can tell when cars are nearby and I have got much better times with the 3D glasses then without them, playing it with the Eye is a little freaky as moving your head does make the screen move but it lags a bit.

The bad points are that you do lose frame rate, if the screen gets busy with other cars and they do crash then you notice the slow down and it is off putting but most courses you do not notice it. Another annoying thing is the convergence can be set but you have to quit the options menu and go back to the title screen to see the difference and then go back to options to change it... the glasses are quite heavy and in endurance races you do want to take them off and have a break too.

Overall I do love the 3D, it is a massive step up from playing Highway Star (Rad Racer) on the Famicom 3D glasses....

 

I've noticed it a couple of times. Definitely with the opening text on Voyage of The Dawn Treader and a little bit on Last Airbender (though, admittedly, the entirety of that movie is blurry!) Commonly though, you don't notice it.

My brother also made comment about the movie Tangled that had issues with crosstalk in 3D. All of these using RealD3D circular polarisation glasses. Really takes you out the film.

 

I've tried PS3 3D GT5 on a number of high end 3D sets here in Japan and the flickering & lowered res/fps clearly tell me that it's a gimmick and not ready for prime time.

 

Wipeout and Motorstorm Rift are pretty good in 3D. The effect is kind of like those 'magic' 3D images in terms of depth, it definitely comes out at you, but it is not as full a 3D experience as the cinema due to the smaller screen. Right now, I don't think I would buy a 3D HDTV and a PS3 to play it, but if I had both I'd play it a lot more.

I think the killer app is Killzone 3 & 3DTV & Move. I'm hopefully going to try the 3 combined this weekend.

 

I remember playing that day in the expo on this setup! I played horribly compared to my usual GT5 gameplay and the reason was the 3D - that said, given more time I might get used to it but no such luck at the moment.. Jamtex locks the thing in his bedroom at nights :crying:

 

the sony tv's aren't using Passive lenses though. ALL the manufactorers for 2010 models were Active shutter lenses.

I'm picking up a 55" NuVision 3D TV but not for the 3D. it just has an AMAZING 2D picture.

 

I've actually seen several manufacturer prototypes for glasses-free 3D TV and I have to say that they aren't that impressive. It gives a little bit of depth to the image, but it doesn't compare to what can be done with the active shutter glasses, at least not yet. I would also say that 2016 is very ambitious and unlikely for the release of a holographic TV. I remember seeing the early engineering prototypes of holographic displays which were designed by engineering teams as part of the Navy labs in San Diego which Sony later licensed for commercial use. They are amazing devices, but they are many, many years away from being commercially viable products. Similarly, Super HD will likely take at least a decade if it ever becomes a commercial reality (television stations are constantly complaining about the cost of moving to HD not only for broadcasting, but also for acquisition of local news and public affairs content and frankly, even some large market stations only made the transition to full HD production within the past two years), just like it took almost two decades for HD to become a common home technology.

Having said all that, I tend to agree that this might just be a fad, but with the new Sony Bravia EX720 series essentially giving you 3D for the same price as the EX710 series just a year ago and 3D now being a feature on this line of Sony TVs in sizes as small as 32", I personally will probably just get the 3D feature since I was planning on spending the same for a TV without it and I already own a PS3 and many of the 3D capable games.

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't see where LeGIt actually stated the model of TV he was using (which is the statement I originally responded to). In fact, I was talking about my experiences in the cinema, in response to alecjahn's statement.

 

There's no Passive TV's out yet. 2011 models aren't out yet, 2010 all used Active Lenses. So unless he's hooking his PS3 up to a professional 3D theater - he's not gonna be using passive lenses.

The only way to use Passive at home is with some of the 3D computer monitors.

the other problem with passive lenses is they literally cut the resolution in half. The push for 3D in home, using disposable Passive lenses is the main draw for 4k by 2k TV resolutions - NOT because people want HIGHER Def.

In fact I believe it was Sharp or Toshiba who said to actually SEE the difference between 1080P and 4K you need a 100" screen.

People want TV at home, with cheap glasses. And to do that without losing HD (since a 1080P passive 3D TV would give you 540 lines) you get 4k x 2k resolutlions.

 

My mistake, I thought they were more commonplace as it was quite the talking point when they were originally launched - obviously many companies bottled out or couldn't get the tech laid out in time. However, it's incorrect that no 2010 TVs didn't use passive glasses, as LG use passive glasses in their LD920 and LD950 models which launched May last year, as does Vizio's XVT3D650SV which launched in December (so probably classifies as a 2011 model).

Anyway, in any case disregard my points on passive 3D in terms of many of last year's TVs. However, my point still stands about cinemas which I sometimes find to be blurry with high contrast content.