http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/News/Latest+News/Panasonic+Showcases+New+Vision+at+IFA+2012+/Panasonic+Presents+the+World's+Largest+Glasses-Free+3D+Plasma+Display+at+IFA+2012/10412338/index.html
Quote...
Outline of the New Systems
1. Interactive Multi-view 3D System:
The Interactive Multi-view 3D System optimally utilizes the special characteristics of 3D to richly express the texture of the object., The user can control the image of an object taken from multiple angles through a touch panel, giving the user the freedom to view the object at the angle and size they desire in full HD 3D. The 3D system is able to display the shape and depth of the 3D image accurately regardless of the magnification ratio and display high resolution images at high speeds. The active-shutter type display is able to accurately express the color and texture of objects.
Examples of Applications:
? As an archive for art galleries and museums, or as a virtual gallery
? As a high quality catalogue for auctions or net shopping services
? As a healthcare education system which can display 3D images of the anatomy of the body.
2. World?s Largest Glasses-free 3D Plasma Display:
The display offers impressive 3D images on a 103-inch glasses-free plasma display, the largest in the world. It can display images at a higher resolution and a higher quality than current parallax barrier type glasses-free 3D displays. Through the use of 4K2K plasma panels, it is possible to display high definition 3D images at a resolution equivalent to HD, and by utilizing a newly developed barrier, moir? interference and crosstalk has been reduced by about half of that of previous glasses-free 3D systems.
Examples of Applications:
? For 3D digital signage where the use of 3D glasses is impractical
? As a highly immersive 3D showroom for cars or interior design.
...
No pictures and lots of marketingspeak. But damn, that's a big display!
LOL that was the first thing I thought myself, where are the photos?
I guess it hasn't technically been shown yet, so there are a lack of photos at the moment...
http://panasonic.co.jp/corp/news/official.data/data.dir/2012/08/en120830-5/en120830-5.html
http://www.google.ca/search?q=Panasonic+Glassless+3D+103%22+TV&tbm=isch
Dinosaur image came from these 2 articles:
http://www.fareastgizmos.com/3d/panasonic-to-exhibit-worlds-largest-glasses-free-3d-plasma-display-at-ifa-2012.php
http://www.toppopular.com/panasonic-unveil-worlds-largest-glasses-free-3d-plasma-tv/
if that helps.
A picture really cant do a 3D tv of any kind justice.
Quote from: Tom on September 05, 2012, 04:52:53 PM
A picture really cant do a 3D tv of any kind justice.
I disagree!
(http://i.imgur.com/TzvD2.gif)
HORY CLAP!
(http://cdn3.mixrmedia.com/wp-uploads/ningin/blog/2009/10/scareprank.jpg)
:B hehe that was my reaction too when I first saw it
That's hilarious. But I don't see what that does to prove your point, or disprove mine ;)
Quote from: Tom on September 06, 2012, 12:15:44 PM
That's hilarious. But I don't see what that does to prove your point, or disprove mine ;)
At the very least we could get a chance to see the form factor of this beast, something.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on September 06, 2012, 12:18:46 PM
Quote from: Tom on September 06, 2012, 12:15:44 PM
That's hilarious. But I don't see what that does to prove your point, or disprove mine ;)
At the very least we could get a chance to see the form factor of this beast, something.
Ah true. I meant the TV's picture itself. Sure you can get a picture of the device, but its just another large tv. The important part is how good the picture is, and if it gives you a headache to watch the 3D.
Quote from: Tom on September 06, 2012, 12:40:24 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on September 06, 2012, 12:18:46 PM
Quote from: Tom on September 06, 2012, 12:15:44 PM
That's hilarious. But I don't see what that does to prove your point, or disprove mine ;)
At the very least we could get a chance to see the form factor of this beast, something.
Ah true. I meant the TV's picture itself. Sure you can get a picture of the device, but its just another large tv. The important part is how good the picture is, and if it gives you a headache to watch the 3D.
Well, also I think it's important if it functions in 2D as well
Quote from: Mr. Analog on September 06, 2012, 12:43:02 PM
Quote from: Tom on September 06, 2012, 12:40:24 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on September 06, 2012, 12:18:46 PM
Quote from: Tom on September 06, 2012, 12:15:44 PM
That's hilarious. But I don't see what that does to prove your point, or disprove mine ;)
At the very least we could get a chance to see the form factor of this beast, something.
Ah true. I meant the TV's picture itself. Sure you can get a picture of the device, but its just another large tv. The important part is how good the picture is, and if it gives you a headache to watch the 3D.
Well, also I think it's important if it functions in 2D as well
Indeed. But its kinda hard to get that wrong these days with such a high end TV. If people spent 20k or more on a new tv, they want it to not suck.
Quote from: Tom on September 06, 2012, 12:52:52 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on September 06, 2012, 12:43:02 PM
Quote from: Tom on September 06, 2012, 12:40:24 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on September 06, 2012, 12:18:46 PM
Quote from: Tom on September 06, 2012, 12:15:44 PM
That's hilarious. But I don't see what that does to prove your point, or disprove mine ;)
At the very least we could get a chance to see the form factor of this beast, something.
Ah true. I meant the TV's picture itself. Sure you can get a picture of the device, but its just another large tv. The important part is how good the picture is, and if it gives you a headache to watch the 3D.
Well, also I think it's important if it functions in 2D as well
Indeed. But its kinda hard to get that wrong these days with such a high end TV. If people spent 20k or more on a new tv, they want it to not suck.
I agree :D sadly you can walk into Visions and see pricey sets that look like butt
Quote from: Mr. Analog on September 06, 2012, 01:00:02 PM
Quote from: Tom on September 06, 2012, 12:52:52 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on September 06, 2012, 12:43:02 PM
Quote from: Tom on September 06, 2012, 12:40:24 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on September 06, 2012, 12:18:46 PM
Quote from: Tom on September 06, 2012, 12:15:44 PM
That's hilarious. But I don't see what that does to prove your point, or disprove mine ;)
At the very least we could get a chance to see the form factor of this beast, something.
Ah true. I meant the TV's picture itself. Sure you can get a picture of the device, but its just another large tv. The important part is how good the picture is, and if it gives you a headache to watch the 3D.
Well, also I think it's important if it functions in 2D as well
Indeed. But its kinda hard to get that wrong these days with such a high end TV. If people spent 20k or more on a new tv, they want it to not suck.
I agree :D sadly you can walk into Visions and see pricey sets that look like butt
I think most times the reason is because the TVs werent calibrated, and were sourced from like analog OTA signals. Or something equally bad.
Most floor sets come with over vivid factory defaults and are run through a bunch of splitters. So yes they look like ass.
Quote from: Lazybones on September 06, 2012, 01:33:42 PM
Most floor sets come with over vivid factory defaults and are run through a bunch of splitters. So yes they look like ass.
Digital splitters shouldn't really make a difference. At most you should see is signal loss and compression artefacts (from chunks of a frame not decompressing)
Though if you do find a really nice looking screen as compared to others connected to the same system, theres a good chance it really is better than the others. Like my 55". The picture on it looked pretty good compared to the other ones I was looking at. The viewing angle was quite a bit better, had better brightness, and the color reproduction looked better as well. Things looked clearer and crisper.
Quote from: Tom on September 06, 2012, 01:59:52 PM
Digital splitters shouldn't really make a difference. At most you should see is signal loss and compression artefacts (from chunks of a frame not decompressing)
What makes you assume that most store displays upgraded to digital splitters? I haven't checked behind sets recently but looking at the awful output sometimes it makes me wonder.
Quote from: Lazybones on September 07, 2012, 01:09:46 PM
Quote from: Tom on September 06, 2012, 01:59:52 PM
Digital splitters shouldn't really make a difference. At most you should see is signal loss and compression artefacts (from chunks of a frame not decompressing)
What makes you assume that most store displays upgraded to digital splitters? I haven't checked behind sets recently but looking at the awful output sometimes it makes me wonder.
That would suck horribly if they haven't. You'd think that if their source (satellite/cable) is most likely digital, and the TVs are most definitely digital, and a digital splitter would help sales (due to better quality), why wouldn't they install a digital splitter?
But you're right, stranger things have happened.
Quote from: Tom on September 07, 2012, 01:23:07 PM
But you're right, stranger things have happened.
No, working in retail both in the front end and in the back end it would be no surprise at all to see brand new equipment hooked up to old broken splitters.
Quote from: Lazybones on September 07, 2012, 01:48:40 PM
Quote from: Tom on September 07, 2012, 01:23:07 PM
But you're right, stranger things have happened.
No, working in retail both in the front end and in the back end it would be no surprise at all to see brand new equipment hooked up to old broken splitters.
Yeah, that's what I was agreeing with. I can see it happening. But it'd be incredibly stupid.
You're assuming that people who manage and run retail stores are smart, or at least not dumb. I'm suggesting your assumption might be a bit far-fetched.
Anyway.
I have a 50" TV. This is a 103" TV. I'm trying to imagine a TV twice as wide and twice as high as what I have in my living room now!
Quote from: Thorin on September 07, 2012, 02:17:19 PM
You're assuming that people who manage and run retail stores are smart, or at least not dumb. I'm suggesting your assumption might be a bit far-fetched.
Anyway.
I have a 50" TV. This is a 103" TV. I'm trying to imagine a TV twice as wide and twice as high as what I have in my living room now!
I'd have to setup split screen... My tv is already almost too large with the distance I sit from it.