mbee wrote:

@macjonny : I was talking about 3D technology, not screen technology, so saying that LG passive sets are not good because they are edge-lit panels doesn't makes any sense : passive tech is more expensive, so for a "normal" price they can't sell both full LED and passive 3D (they are LG, not B&O!)... But B&O could have done that, and then they would have had a totally innovative set on the market. Instead, they choose the cheap way... With cheap standard "kikinoko" glasses.

3D passive plasma has no sense commercially today as plasma is more expensive as LCD, then you would add the cost of the polarised panel... Only a company which sells TVs over 50k€ could have done that... But there is only one company I know which sells such expensive TVs, and they don't produce their panels! 😕 

It's true that 3D is really good for games (I've played a lot with Motorstorm in 3D), but I'm not sure that a lot of Beovision 4 85 will be connected to a PS3! But the vast majority of customers are not gamers. 3D is a niche which is difficult to sell as "the new thing to have". 

Concerning pure 3D quality, you will see that the whole industry will move to passive, mainly due to a more "relaxing" picture (3D glasses can't go faster than 50Hz, which is simply not enough) and a better contrast and brightness (for the brightness, it's physical : as you close one eye 50% of the time, you loose at least 50% of light, even if the glasses are totally transparent . But contrary to active 3D, it has a cost, so it's not easy to sell, and then today, for a "normal" price, plasma is the best compromise (as it can virtually provide crosstalk-free 3D picture).

What I meant is that the viewing experience of passive sets, both in 2D and 3D, are going to be suboptimal compared to active plasma 3D sets due to the screen technology.  Saying people prefer passive sets because they prefer the 3D technology isn't true.  They may like the idea of passive 3D but that doesn't mean the actual passive 3D TVs are going to be better that are on the market NOW. 

B&O couldn't have made a 85" passive 3D set because they don't make their own panels, so how would they have done this?  NOt sure what you mean about plasma being more expensive here.  Plasma is MUCH CHEAPER in larger sizes than LCD, and MUCH BETTER in almost every way except for energy usage and bright light viewing. 

PS3 has sold 50 million plus.  There is a huge market for 3D games that is only just beginning to be tapped.  It won't be a niche for long.  Very few % of people have played a 3D game, and for those that have seen mine it is mind-blowing for them.  You are right though the average B&O buyer isn't going to care much.

Since I make eyewear, aka "glasses" I really object when one uses disparaging decriptors like "cumbersome.".  But active 3D eyewear, and most passives, are in fact objectionable is design and comfort.

We can supply now  a frame-less circular polarized clipon for anyone's Rx glasses.  And for less money than the active models cost.

As far as glasses-less 3D, it has some inherent limitations.  Take a look at this flash video from Popular Science:

sorry i can't find this on the B&O website?

I have NO interest in 3D TV whatsoever..

Nor do I want a TV that is big for the sake of being big. TV sizes have increased to such large sizes purely to 'keep up with the Joneses'. Electronics companys are pushing the 'bigger is better' and 'look how many features we can cram in to a TV!'. People in Australia are devoting rooms to 'home cinema', even constructing special rooms in their McMansions (google it, along with the word 'bogan')

Friends always ask me when I'm going to go to a large flat panel TV. My answer is only when I absolutely have to. 

It seems that TVs are now larger than the windows we look through to see the amazing world we live in, and I think this is pretty sad...

I highly doubt that anyone who buys one of these is going to be pushed into making a purchase decision based on 3D.  I'm guessing it was just one of those things where the panel that was available just happened to be a 3D panel and one of the clever guys in Struer was able to figure out that with a bit of tinkering and tweaking the BeoSystem 3 could pass through a 3D signal through to it.

To answer the questions about the System 3 there are marginal (as it not noticeable or noteworthy) differences between BeoSystem 3 MKI/II and BeoSystem 3-3D.  There's an HDMI 1.4 output that currently is compatible with whatever tech is in the 85" screen as well as the top end Samsung 3D projector.  At this point I'm really not sure if that means other screens will be supported as well.  By the way, the operative word in the last statement is output (as evidenced by the boldness!).  Take from that what you will, but from what I've been able to conclude based on the use of that word is that we shouldn't expect anything groundbreaking as far as features that come along with the spec bump ... at least anywhere beyond what's going on between the panel and the BeoSystem 3.

Anyhow ... I still have a lot of questions myself but if anyone is in the NYC area towards the end of May and beyond we will actually be one of the only stores in the Americas with an 85" display on the motorized stand.  Come by and check it out and hopefully by then I'll have some real concrete answers!

People in Australia are devoting rooms to 'home cinema', even constructing special rooms in their McMansions 

Really? This may come as a surprise to you Jonathan but those who can afford such things have been installing them in their homes since the beginning of the 20th century!

Hollywood stars of the silent movies had cinema rooms built into their homes and it didn't take long for the wealthy to follow. 

fraberg wrote:

 

Hi Roger
Will BV 10-55 come on new teknlogy platform? When do you think it will beintroduced?

BV 11, screen sizes?  Differences from BV 10 ?

Frank