Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Television Hardware Entertainment

Hot Or Not — 3D TV 419

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the sounds-like-a-play-for-my-wallet dept.
Several sources have written to tell us that in terms of hype at this year's CES show, there is none bigger than that surrounding 3D TV. Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, LG, and Toshiba all have their own flavors of hardware and ESPN announced a 3D sports channel, but Microsoft seems to be bucking the trend with their apparent lack of 3D interest surrounding the Xbox product. "We're yet to see any major brand at CES pushing a 3D TV that doesn't require them. In most cases these aren't the basic Ray Ban style you might have worn to watch Avatar. In many cases they'll actually require power. For example, Sony's 3D TVs use a 'frame sequential' display method, which involves active-shutter glasses that turn on and off in sync with the images. Some TVs come with the glasses and have the transmitter built in, but again, in some cases you'll need to buy the transmitter and glasses separately."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hot Or Not — 3D TV

Comments Filter:
  • Auto Stereoscopy... (Score:3, Informative)

    by TheKidWho (705796) on Friday January 08, 2010 @03:25PM (#30698512)

    Just doesn't work... It's headache inducing and problematic with multiple viewers and viewing angles.

    Don't expect it anytime soon in a practical and usable form.

    3D circularly polarized projectors are probably the best usable tech as the glasses are cheap. However high refresh rate LCDs with active shutter glasses are probably the best tech for PCs.

    • by poetmatt (793785) on Friday January 08, 2010 @03:29PM (#30698568) Journal

      don't you know why this is done? TV manufacturers are running out of ways for being able to insulate the price barrier.

      This has nothing to do with 3d being good or bad, it has to do with how every manufacturer has an agreement on artificially insulating price with a new technology. Same was done with flat panel, then LCD, then high def, then hz wars(120! 240!).

      All marginal technologies that should normal drive the price down. Instead they'll be able to have 52" TV's be in the many thousands of dollars amount for years to come due to raising it back up for 3d.

      Think of it like apple's feature creep, it's the same idea and same reasons, to force price to an arbitrary amount before it eats into their margins.

      • by TheKidWho (705796) on Friday January 08, 2010 @03:38PM (#30698694)

        Sure, but compare the price of Plasma displays now and when they were introduced, or even regular old LCD TVs... No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to buy a 3D TV, you can buy a 40-50" regular HD LCD TV for sub-$1000 these days.

        Besides, I don't understand what your reply has to do with the actual technology behind 3D displays. I swear, almost every other post here on slashdot has become about how expensive something is or how it's not free or extremely cheap...

        Oh wait, I must be new here or something.

        • by sjames (1099)

          His post explains why the manufacturers are trying so hard to fabricate demand for a feature nobody really wants using technology that isn't there yet.

          TFA doesn't ask what the tech is, it asks if there's demand for it given that you have to re-buy everything and wear funky goggles to watch it.

          • by TheKidWho (705796)

            I understand what his post is about, I was simply answering the problem stated in the article of no TVs being released that do not require glasses. His post is completely tangential to mine.

            From TFS:
            "We're yet to see any major brand at CES pushing a 3D TV that doesn't require them. In most cases these aren't the basic Ray Ban style you might have worn to watch Avatar. In many cases they'll actually require power. For example, Sony's 3D TVs use a "frame sequential"display method, which involves active-shutt

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        You might be right, but I think they are just following the recent trend in movie theaters

        Movie theaters must move to 3-D! Television screens and sound systems are approaching the point where the theater experience has nothing to really offer the viewer. 3-D gives us a reason to go to the theater.

        Totally anecdotal, but my wife actually went with me to see Avatar twice! We usually wait for movies to be released on DVD before we see it a second time if it was any good. We don't have 3-D so we must go to

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Dan667 (564390)
        they should focus on content delivery. Hooking your TV up to the internet and making it easy to find content is a way to differentiate your hardware and sell it at a premium.
      • don't you know why this is done? TV manufacturers are running out of ways for being able to insulate the price barrier.

        I don't buy that. All it takes is one hungry smaller company that decides it doesn't need to try to milk consumers with gradual feature creep to produce a product that costs the same but has more features. Implementing 3d on tvs should be no more complex that cranking the refresh rate up, and selling overpriced polarized glasses.
        • by poetmatt (793785)

          if 3d is not complex, then why do you think it's somehow not going to raise the price of tv's enormously? or as the old concept goes "why does the red one cost more than the green one? it's the same thing."

          Go look at a specific size and/or brand of TV for the last 30 years. Go watch how little has actually changed. like I said, small resolution leaps, and such. Meanwhile, the price has remained very consistent with inflation regardless of things being cheaper to produce. Oh you will notice one thing though.

          • Re:Competition (Score:5, Insightful)

            by maxume (22995) on Friday January 08, 2010 @04:00PM (#30699060)

            30 years ago, you could hardly buy a television that wasn't a CRT, and if you wanted something over 30", you had to be very prepared to bust out your wallet. Today, a 30" LCD costs $750 (or whatever, I'm probably within $250, which is fine when you consider that the 30 year old television probably cost $2,500, and those numbers don't bother to account for inflation).

            You are delusional.

          • Re:Competition (Score:5, Informative)

            by TheKidWho (705796) on Friday January 08, 2010 @04:10PM (#30699170)

            Red and Green aren't the same, they are chemically different and the prices of the consumables can affect the cost of each color.

            You're delusional if you think TVs haven't changed radically in the past 30 years...

            30 years ago you were lucky to have a display capable of 640x480 which is .3MP... Today you can buy a 1080p 2M display, that's a nearly 7x increase in resolution.

            You are also highly delusional if you think price has remained consistent with inflation... I purchased my 30" 1920x1200 display for $350... In 1990 dollars that would be $215... You are insane if you think you could purchase a 2MP 30" Display for $215 in 1990.

            • 30 years ago you were lucky to have a display capable of 640x480 which is .3MP

              There are two ways to think about this. In 1980, most personal computers had very low resolutions. The Apple II, for instance, had a resolution of 280×192 in HiRes mode. The IBM PC came out later (and even then, its graphics capabilities were nothing to write home about).

              But if you had a graphics workstation, dual 1280 x 1280 displays were available. [intergraph.com] Of course, such a system might have cost tens of thousands of dollars.

        • by tibman (623933)

          I think we see those companies and TVs all the time.. but they are called "no name brands" and other bad names. People like to buy brands they've heard of, even if the product isn't as good.

      • by timeOday (582209) on Friday January 08, 2010 @03:49PM (#30698848)
        Well, sure, innovation is supposed to spur new sales. Sony released the PS3 so people would want to give them money, including people who already bought PS2s. So long as there's value for the consumer, how is this bad? You could argue it will displace what would have been cheaper options, but I don't think that's true. A couple months ago I got a 20" 1080p LCD monitor for under $100. Even after decades of maturity, CRTs were never that cheap (except perhaps in their waning days after the assembly lines had been sold off to generic manufacturers). The PS2 has enjoyed a long & cheap life on the market, post-PS3. Now, at some point, it will be almost as cheap to make a PS3 as a PS2, and at that point the PS2 will disappear. But it's not like the price of the PS2 could ever have dropped much further anyway.

        I think 3D will end up being an almost free feature you can use or ignore. And since having somewhat of a 3d revelation watching Avatar, I'm looking forward to it.

        • by poetmatt (793785)

          ps2 and ps3 are not similar at all. Look at PS3 at the different hard drive sizes and the actual cost of those hard drives, and then you are more accurate. You're overthinking.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by nine-times (778537)

        Good point. It's like TV manufacturers are getting so good at driving the price down that their products are becoming actually cheap, so they have to find a way to bump the price back up. One of the things that I've noticed starting to creep in is Internet connections directly on your TV. I can see the value if your TV had built-in Netflix streaming, but I get the sense that they're moving more towards something like, "You'll be able to see eBay ads directly on your TV!"

        I often look at this stuff and th

      • You had me in this comment right up to:

        Think of it like apple's feature creep

        You're weakening your point in writing this because it shows that you don't know very much about Apple products if you think they are known for feature creep. Case in point: the most recent version of OS X (snow leopard) removed a substantial number of additional features. Or do you not remember the touted 7Gb savings when upgrading? The most consequential being the ability to run on powerpc architectures. Secondly, they als

  • What do active glasses give you that polarity glasses wouldn't? Why go that road except to eek out a bit more cash from the consumer?
    • by lorenlal (164133) on Friday January 08, 2010 @03:27PM (#30698536)

      I don't understand.... Isn't that the whole point?

      Sincerely,
      PHBs at Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, LG, and Toshiba

    • Re:Active glasses? (Score:5, Informative)

      by fridaynightsmoke (1589903) on Friday January 08, 2010 @03:30PM (#30698582) Homepage

      What do active glasses give you that polarity glasses wouldn't? Why go that road except to eek out a bit more cash from the consumer?

      It's technically feasible to build a consumer television that alternates the left/right eye images, frame by frame, in sync with alternate blanking on glasses. All you need is a LCD with a good enough refresh rate and the right electronics.

      To use polarising glasses requires a large exotic projector, the space to set it up (think 'theatre' not 'living room') and a massively expensive reflective screen (AFAIK, anyway). Thats why.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by XDirtypunkX (1290358)

        There are technologies that allow you to do polarized 3D from an LCD display such as that used in the iZ3D monitors.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          There are technologies that allow you to do polarized 3D from an LCD display such as that used in the iZ3D monitors.

          Now that is interesting, I didn't know that...

          Just been looking at a description of the technology here: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/display/iz3d.html [xbitlabs.com]

          The fact remains though that active glasses allow the use of a 'normal' LCD panel as a display though. Will one system win out, or will there remain a variety of technologies? Time will tell.

          • Re:Active glasses? (Score:4, Informative)

            by XDirtypunkX (1290358) on Friday January 08, 2010 @04:30PM (#30699470)

            The other way to do polarization with LCD is Hyundai's way. They use filters per row so you get half vertical resolution 3D per eye, kind of like an interlaced TV signal.

            This seems to have the potential to be a lot easier and cheaper manufacturing process. Not only that if you can get LCD panels (or indeed any flat panel display technology) that has twice 1080P resolution in one or both dimensions, there are suddenly very few draw backs as there is no flickering (like shutter glasses), no ghosting (like iZ3D) and no loss of resolution.

      • by Hassman (320786)

        What about people with only one eye? The polarized glasses make it possible for those individuals to still view the movie, though in plain 2D.

        I don't know much about the technology, but does the alternating eye thing have a distorted picture on the TV? If so then there are many people who won't be able to take part in the experience.

        All this it to me is another way for cable companies to charge another 5 dollars a month for "premium" content, and then another 5 dollars a month for a special cable box to w

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TheKidWho (705796)

      How do you polarize the image from a conventional LCD without significantly reducing contrast ratios and brightness during non 3D viewing?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by MikeBabcock (65886)

        For those who may not understand all LCD images are polarized. Try turning your head sideways with polarizing sunglasses on while looking at a conventional LCD display (from a gas pump to your radio to the TV).

        LCDs are a polarized light technology.

    • by fredjh (1602699)

      Higher resolution. Unlike a projection system, on an LCD screen of a given resolution, when it's in 3D mode, you're going to get half your pixels going to one eye, half to the other. With active shutter glasses, each eye gets the full resolution (just at half the framerate, but if the content is 60hz, and the monitor is 120hz, it shouldn't be a problem).

      • by fredjh (1602699)

        Actually, I may be lying, it depends how the passive is implemented on the LCD monitor. Well... not lying, just wrong.

    • by Alan Shutko (5101)

      Polarity glasses only work if you have a polarized display. With an LCD or Plasma TV, there's no convenient way to flip the polarization 30 times a second or so. Instead, you need the active glasses which can block the correct eye in sync with the TV.

      Active glasses could also work with a dvd player or game system without requiring support from the TV. I knew someone who had them for an Amiga 25 years ago.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Vintermann (400722)

      Polarized glasses leak like hell unless you sit in exactly the right spot and look exactly the right direction - or at least they did last time I tried them.

    • Re:Active glasses? (Score:5, Informative)

      by bobdehnhardt (18286) on Friday January 08, 2010 @03:48PM (#30698838)

      Active glasses are old tech. I saw them demoed about 14 years ago - worked okay, a little distracting. But it wasn't at CES, it was Comdex. Well, okay, it was actually Adultdex, an "adult industry" tech/trade show that occurred at the Sahara during Comdex.

      Pron really pushed the tech envelope back then....

    • by sjames (1099)

      It's a manufacturing problem. In the theater, they use 2 projectors with polarization filters offset by 90 degrees. To do that with TV, they'd have to double the pixel density and the panel would have to be a mosaic of single pixel cells.

      So instead, they use shutter glasses that need power and a synch signal from the display.

  • On the PC, all I need is the Nvidia glasses and a display that can do 120 Hz. I heard that with TVs, you can do the same thing. So, do we just need a TV that does 120 Hz, and let the receiver do the rest, or do we need a special TV?

    DirecTV hasn't said what their 3D receiver will be yet.

  • by Change (101897) on Friday January 08, 2010 @03:27PM (#30698544)

    When watching 3D movies, I tend to go cross-eyed and get a headache very quickly. I think it's because everything I'm seeing is on the same focal plane, but my eyes attempt to adjust for parallax based on different apparent distances of objects. I had to walk out of Avatar 3D after about 10 minutes, I just could not watch it like that. Does anyone else experience this?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by electricbern (1222632)
      It happens to me too and it doesn't go away after 10 minutes as other commenter posted. I watched Avatar 2D and headache-free.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by bazald (886779)

      I found, when watching Avatar, that it was important to look where the director wants you to look. Real cameras have real focal distances, so you can't look wherever you want and expect to be able to get everything in focus. Up was an easier viewing experience, but with a less extreme 3D effect.

    • by TheKidWho (705796)

      The problem is the Camera systems being used work similar to the eye, they have to focus on a specific part of the image. When you try to look at an area that is out of focus, your eyes make a futile attempt to focus the image which ends in a headache and nausea.

      Basically, focus on the part of the image that's in focus.

      • To be fair, this is the director's fault too -- the movie should not have your attention being drawn away from the focal point of the shot.

        Bad focus pulls in cheap movies and TV shows cause me headaches too, because the wrong face is in focus during dialog, etc.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Zen-Mind (699854)
      My brain IS medically incapable of 3D. I suffer from a condition called amblyopia and therefore can rarely percieve any 3D effect no matter the technology; to be honnest I probably don't see the real world in 3D either. However, for some reason, I have rather good depth perception, probably adapted over the years since I suffer from amblyopia since I was born. So I'm also part of the group that is totally indifferent to all this 3D hype beside the fact that I fear overall image quality might go down because
    • I'm in the same boat; 3D gives me splitting headaches almost instantly. It's bad to the point where I simply will not go to see a 3D movie, period. Have fun guys, tell me how it is when you get back.

      I've been reading/hearing about all this interest in 3D everywhere and I realize that I'm just not going to go along with this particular tech. Apart from my issues with 3D, where did all this 3D-love come from all of a sudden? It seems this particular tech was relegated to IMAX nature movies at the local scienc

  • by fredjh (1602699) on Friday January 08, 2010 @03:28PM (#30698560)

    We just got two 3D monitors from Hyundai, one smaller one that goes in the production area, and a huge one to show to clients. The networks, especially the ones that generate a lot of their own content, are scrambling for 3D content... not necessarily because they want to push it, but because everyone is scared to be left behind.

    The Hyundai monitors use passive glasses, and the image is quite good. I can see 3D, especially with passive glasses (where you can buy replacements or extras for reasonable prices), really taking off.

  • meh. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by decipher_saint (72686) * on Friday January 08, 2010 @03:30PM (#30698574) Homepage

    Who wants to wear an extra pair of glasses just to watch TV?

    This whole 3D video thing smacks of a industry money grab disguised as a fad...
    Exec: "Well everyone and their gramma has a 'flatscreen' jumbotron at home, what do we do now?"
    R&D: "Gentlemen, we've reached the limits of this plane of entertainment, we must go to the next dimension"

    *dramatic music*

  • I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Brandee07 (964634) on Friday January 08, 2010 @03:30PM (#30698580)

    I just don't see the benefit in 3D TV. I know the technology is getting better, but the 3D in Avatar was just good enough to not be a distraction from the movie- it certainly didn't add anything to it, besides $5 for the ticket. The point is that for most of the movie, I did not perceive anything different than a normal movie, and those moments when I did were distracting and jarring. I have seen a couple imax movies in 3D and I think I tend to mentally flatten the images- except for the parts where the snake jumps out at you, which is just distracting and cheesy.

    So, if I'm going to be mentally flattening the images anyway, why bother?

    • I have seen a couple imax movies in 3D and I think I tend to mentally flatten the images- except for the parts where the snake jumps out at you, which is just distracting and cheesy.

      See I have had a similar experience when watching 3D movies, but I don't think it's because you're "mentally flattening" the image. It's because when you're looking at a 2D image, you're "mentally 3D-ifying" it. (I'm sure there's an actual term for this, but since I don't know one, I'm going to use "3D-ify".) For example, look around the room you're sitting it. Now cover 1 eye and look around the room again. Did you suddenly get the idea that you're looking at a flat world? No, because your brain uses

    • Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CannonballHead (842625) on Friday January 08, 2010 @03:40PM (#30698728)

      Then don't buy it.

      I don't see the benefit in a big screen TV. I don't watch TV and don't watch too many movies. So I don't buy one. It's pretty simple. :)

    • Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D (1160707) on Friday January 08, 2010 @03:40PM (#30698734)

      You just explained why colour TV and colour movies are useless. Watch a black and white and within a couple minutes you'll forget you're watching black and white.

      The short answer is "because we can". It won't be too long before 3D technology brings prices down so that it's as cheap as 2D is now. Just like when colour first came out, people were initially using it for whiz-bang "look what we can do" effect and it took a few years before it just became nothing special. So it will go with 3D.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by JumperCable (673155)

      I agree, 3D imagery in Avatar turned out to be primarily "blurry vision" with some parts that jump out at you. And the stuff that does jump out at you, isn't all that important. I'd rather see crisp clear video without the gimmicky distractions.

      I suspect the movie & TV industry are attempting to find a way to provide unique content to keep people going to movie theaters instead of just watching it at home on TV. And the TV industry wants to find a way to beat out the downloaders with unique better qu

    • it certainly didn't add anything to it, besides $5 for the ticket.

    • Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DragonWriter (970822) on Friday January 08, 2010 @03:47PM (#30698824)

      I know the technology is getting better, but the 3D in Avatar was just good enough to not be a distraction from the movie- it certainly didn't add anything to it, besides $5 for the ticket.

      Your tastes are not universal. Considerable experience has demonstrated that a commercially-significant number of people do find that 3D adds to the entertainment value of various forms of visual entertainment.

    • Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ZorbaTHut (126196) on Friday January 08, 2010 @04:19PM (#30699314) Homepage

      See, I think this is actually a sign that the 3d was done well.

      I've seen movies where the 3d jumped out at me. Boing, giant monster in my face, sproing, 3d gizmos in the face, hey look at how many things we can jam in your face.

      Avatar didn't do that. It wasn't a 3d tour de force, it was a movie that happened to be in 3d. Most of the time, you're right, I just didn't notice - and that was its strength. Instead of being a pile of 3d special effects, it was a movie that just happened to be deeper and realer due to the use of 3d.

      It's like HDTV or, as some have mentioned, color. If you don't notice it, it's doing its job. Sometimes its job is just subtle.

  • This will remain a high-end niche product like Laserdisc. 3D simply won't become mainstream until they can pull it off without glasses. The only question, is that even possible?

    DVD offered such a significant advance over VHS adopting it was a no-brainer. Same goes for HDTV over standard def. But 3D TV might also resemble BlueRay where there's just not enough market penetration. People aren't seeing a compelling argument for abandoning regular DVD's. BueRay still sells but is not market-dominant and I don't

    • This will remain a high-end niche product like Laserdisc. 3D simply won't become mainstream until they can pull it off without glasses. The only question, is that even possible?

      Not until we figure out how to do holographics easily.

    • 3D simply won't become mainstream until they can pull it off without glasses. The only question, is that even possible?

      It certainly is, and Sharp even manufactured and sold a product that did it. A no-glasses 3D 17" LCD. It was radically expensive. The difficulty is the transition; most content isn't 3D. A 3D display is basically always a 3D display. It's not something that can be turned off. So the monitor has to include internal software and silicon to synthesize a compatible image out of 2D data.

  • Flicker comes back (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Animats (122034) on Friday January 08, 2010 @03:31PM (#30698594) Homepage

    We finally get a display technology with zero flicker, the LCD, and the 3D crowd has to put it back. Yuck.

  • Killer app: porn (Score:4, Insightful)

    by base3 (539820) on Friday January 08, 2010 @03:32PM (#30698608)
    It's like those 38-DDDs are right in your face!
  • Not Parallax?? (Score:3, Informative)

    by X86Daddy (446356) on Friday January 08, 2010 @03:35PM (#30698650) Journal

    I've used 3D shutter glasses for my PC that work with nVidia drivers/cards for well over a decade. Any 3D game can render this way... the tech works okay, but nowhere near as lovely or convenient as the Captain EO / Avatar method which uses polarized projection and unpowered polarized glasses... and 3D eyeglass-free monitors that use parallax have existed for about a decade as well now... None of the new TVs do this? You can add field-sequential, shutter-frame tech to your PC and a good CRT for under $50... for the last decade. Fun for immersion... a bit of an impediment for high accuracy things like sniping in a FPS though.

  • by cjmnews (672731) <cjmnews@yahoo.com> on Friday January 08, 2010 @03:35PM (#30698652) Homepage

    Mostly it is due to the glasses and the effect the glasses have on the wearer.

    Having recently seen my first 3D movie at a theater last night, I can say that yes it does look incredible, but I have significant eye strain, that is still bothering me the next day.

    Others I have talked to said they get headaches from the 3D glasses, others just hate having to wear them due to comfort, interfering with their normal glasses or not used to wearing glasses..

    Sorry, no one I have talked to is willing to veg out for an hour or 2 in the evenings with 3D glasses on.

    I am really not willing to do it for games either. I'd rather have a few hours gaming in 2D, than a short duration with headaches in 3D.

  • They Have A Point... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TooManyNames (711346) on Friday January 08, 2010 @03:40PM (#30698722)
    Really, if your 3D TV requires powered glasses in order to experience 3D viewing, why not just get rid of the TV altogether and simply display slightly offset images on each lens of a pair of glasses? I doubt that cost would be an issue seeing as how video glasses seem to be available for under $200 (it would take a lot of people viewing to overcome the cost of the 3D TV + TV glasses). It obviously can't be related to a communal viewing experience as everyone viewing the 3D TV will need glasses anyway.

    At least with polarized glasses the power requirement is gone but still, since some form of eyewear is required anyway, why not just get rid of the TV altogether? Is it just because you'll still be able to watch 2D without the glasses?

    Don't get me wrong, the prospects look interesting, but it just seems like holding onto the TV for no other purpose than being able to manufacture large and expensive displays.
  • by Silentknyght (1042778) on Friday January 08, 2010 @03:40PM (#30698730)

    An article on Sony and "betting it all" on 3D TVs [wsj.com] was published in the Wall Street Journal, yesterday. A pretty detailed article, imo.

    Basically, that article pointed out the fatal flaw:

    The challenge for Sony and the other electronics makers: persuading people to adopt 3-D so quickly after hundreds of millions of households just made the transition to high-definition video. Consumers will have to buy brand new televisions, which, according to some estimates, could cost between 10% and 20% more than the high-definition TVs currently on the market.

    Not going to happen. People are going to resist this like mad. "New TV? I just bought a new HDTV, and now you want me to go buy a new one so soon which is more expensive? Yeah, go fuck yourselves."

    Inflammatory rhetoric aside, what I found most interesting, though, is that CEO Stringer appears to be his push (at least in this arena) against the "Not invented here" bias that is apparently so prevalent at Sony. Most slashdotters will agree--we don't need more proprietary, incompatible Sony formats. Hopefully this attitude is promoted outside the 3D TV realm.

  • In response to concerns that there's very little consumer need/demand for 3D TV, many proponents try to draw parallels to HDTV's slow adoption: that we just need to shove it out into the marketplace in order to attract enough early content and viewers to create the critical mass necessary for widespread acceptance. But I think that's an unfair comparison. HDTV was an "easy sell" to consumers: big screens + sharp picture. The slow adaption was mostly due to provider, network, and regulatory BS. 3D TV pr

  • Every technology I've seen so far for 3D television/movie presentation has been teh suck. Why? Because I have one eye. Alas, I am not disabled enough to leverage the ADA, but I'm not the litigious sort anyway. But every technique so far devised to have each eye see something different when looking at one screen has screwed up the case where only one view gets used. I either see both views simultaneously, which is like double vision for "close" objects, or I see things the wrong color (for the old red/green

    • by DCstewieG (824956)

      I don't see why you couldn't wear the polarized glasses and just see the movie as if it was a normal 2D projection.

  • I thought those powered blinky glasses were the ones that gave everyone headaches...

    • by Andy Dodd (701)

      That's why it died for a few years, until display technology improved.

      There's a reason why NVidia's new 3D Vision system requires a 120 Hz display - it isn't much different than the old shutter-based glasses for NV cards, BUT it's double the refresh rate.

  • The switch from black and white TV was an easy sell: color looks better.
    The switch (in progress...) from SD to HD is an easy sell: bigger/sharper looks better.
    But I have a hard time believing that everything could/should be in 3d. Action movies? Sure. Sports? Sure. But drama? Sitcoms? News?

    What I notice 3d mostly being used for is "gimmick shots" in movies where some object deliberately leaps out at you. I've never seen a movie where 3d offered some consistent, ever-present visual benefit.

  • 3D, HD, monster screen - whatever.

    The content of the programmes is what people watch - not the fuzziness of the picture, or the brilliance of the colours, nor whether the characters "leap out" of the screen (though how this would work on games shows and reality programmes I do not know). TV nowadays is constrained by budgets and timescales - there's a limited amount of advertising money available to turn into programming and a limited amount of time to spend making each show. These are what limits the qua

  • The only time we are going to get 3d television is once 3d holographic projectors are an established technology. This is not because of any technological limitation with 3d glasses. But simply because 3d glasses look stupid and no one will want to wear them. Plus people have a hard enough time losing their remote. Plus you wont be able to just invite X friends over to watch some TV you will have to have a set of glasses for each person. Any tech which requires 3d glasses is doomed to failure from the get go

"Card readers? We don't need no stinking card readers." -- Peter da Silva (at the National Academy of Sciencies, 1965, in a particularly vivid fantasy)

Working...