What's the definition of a heatsink for a hot journalist? Answer: the local boozer
|
|
|
Epson banishes 3D projectors by telling the truth
THERE IS at least one company that has a common sense attitude towards the agressive marketing of 3D visual gear, with Epson saying that it will not produce 3D projectors for the foreseeable future.
The firm known more for its printers is apparently the number one supplier of projectors with a reported market share close to 30 per cent. So it is surprising and perhaps refreshing to see that Epson has banished 3D projectors for the time being, saying at a press event in London that it won't be producing any 3D projectors until a real standard comes out.
Epson UK marketing manager Iain Friar took the words out of our mouth by saying that the company will not be peddling 3D projectors because there is not enough content, the standard is not ready and ultimately no one is buying into the marketing fluff. He was of course, word for word, correct.
As we reported, Brits have not bought into the marketing hogwash of 3D tellies. Confirming that, Epson said that only 3 per cent of television sales are 3D TVs.
That figure isn't too bad considering the technology was thrust into the public limelight less than a year ago, but given the massive marketing blitz by manufacturers such as Sony, Samsung and Panasonic, it hardly represents a worthy return on investment for companies and customers alike.
Typically such statements would be put out by companies trying to justify a lack of product, but the truth is that Epson, being the market leader, has much more to lose than the bit part players. Its 3LCD imaging technology powers many manufacturers' projectors including Sony, Panasonic, Hitachi, Toshiba and of course Epson's own range, competing with Texas Instruments' DLP chip.
Whether Epson's reservations about 3D technology could see manufacturers jumping over to the DLP chip remains to be seen.
In the meantime, Epson deserves credit for not peddling more of the same marketing spin about 3D as other manufacturers, which no one seems to be buying. µ
Share this:
Share
Both rival technologies to DLP, which are LCoS and LCD, are very slow compared to DLP. The DLP mirrors are measured in microseconds, while liquid crystal on/off twists are measured in milliseconds. DLP mirrors are 1000 times faster. It is easy for a DLP projector to create extra frames for each eye although there is a loss in brightness.
The solution some LCoS/LCD makers have come up with is to put in additional chips dedicated to generate alternate frames for the left and right eyes. This increases cost a lot not only from the additional panel, but more sophisticated optics are required.
It is obvious that companies linked to LCoS and LCD are more likely to downplay 3d because DLP can pull it off without dramatic cost increases.
Most new feature-length animations coming out of the USA today are 3D. It does give a heightened experience when the subject matter is optimized to use it.
Sports programs in 3D is another matter. The effect is still stimulating, but not as relevant to the experience. Perhaps I compare it to being-in-the-stadium, but that is largely a 2D experience, too.
You need to read reviews of the Epson HC8100 projector which pretty much blows away anything in its price range and no other company in my book comes close to customer support than Epson.
You do have validity that Panasonic does make an excellent projector but then we would be talking about a projector that costs about $1000.00 more than the HC8100 more in the HC8500 where Panasonic PT-AE4000 I would agree has a edge over the Epson in visual quality.
If your on a budget the HC8100 is king. If you have $1000.00 more to spend the Panasonic PT-AE4000 is king.
Either way kudos to Epson to tell the 3d industry to pick one already. I must have 5 different kinds of 3D glasses at home for various 3D video's and good 3D is certainly possible without needing to purchase excessively priced hardware and glasses so knock it off with the price gouging of 3D.
I was doing 3D way back on my Asus V3800 video card with stereoscopic glasses which cost $30.00. Why are they $200.00 now? Price gouging un-necessary gimmick
While 3d is a load of old rubbish, it's worth considering that most projectors are bought by businesses for conference rooms, Epson lead there and they have decent product. But IMHO Epson's aren't great for TV, and I would be surprised if they have market share in the domestic/TV/Video market (I'd buy a Panasonic). Guess what - you dont want 3D in a conference room for death-by-powerpoint meeting. (Although it'd be funny to see all the Joe90's)