Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hot Or Not — 3D TV

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the sounds-like-a-play-for-my-wallet dept.

Television 419

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."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First post (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30698506)

First post

Auto Stereoscopy... (2, Informative)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:Auto Stereoscopy... (5, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698568)

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.

Re:Auto Stereoscopy... (4, Insightful)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:Auto Stereoscopy... (0)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698856)

Okay, lets see.
Here's an example.

We have a TV, with an antenna. Let's sell a new one at a higher premium, the feature is "it's antenna-less!". X years later, lets sell a new one, the feature is "it has better reception due to an improved/new antenna!". Tv manufacturers have done this for years. Go find someone who works for any TV manufacturer and they can tell you this firsthand. You'll also find out there are a total of about 3 actual companies, and the rest is just subsidiaries. Everyone's parts come from the same manufacturer, just someone different puts it together.

Replace any feature with the antenna concept and you'll see what has happened to certain electronics ever year for the last 20 years. This happens in many industries. It's always things hard for people to document, always things verbal.
The answer is, it's not about 3d. It's about keeping the price higher than 3d costs, and not by accident. Or do you not remember the price fixing scandal? That was just one facet.

Re:Auto Stereoscopy... (4, Insightful)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#30699106)

Are you implying in your example that they didn't improve the antenna? Or are you trying to imply that they already had the design for an improved antenna but decided to wait to push the technology? Or are you cynically implying that they had the technology and capability to introduce the improved antenna at the same price point but decided to create an artificial barrier?

Because I would say all of that is Grade A BS spoken from someone who has no knowledge of actual engineering and product development.

Yes, there are only a handful of LCD manufacturers, one of them being Sony, LG, and Samsung... All of whom are trying to push 3D. However a clueless individual like yourself might assume that since there are only a handful of manufacturers, that every LCD that comes from these manufacturers is exactly the same. That would be a highly ignorant statement. Companies who purchase the Liquid Crystal Displays for usage in TVs for example have the choice of purchasing high quality or low quality components. Usually the components will be run through an automated QA process and the best components will be sold for the highest prices. Also, companies can ask for the components to be produced with higher quality components and tighter manufacturing tolerances.

To assume that all LCDs from one manufacturer are the same is foolish.

You know what's happened with electronics over the past 20 years? They've improved tremendously.

Re:Auto Stereoscopy... (0, Flamebait)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698858)

Way to miss the point. No one is complaining about the lack of free-or-cheap televisions. The complaint is with powerful oligopolies manipulating markets.

Re:Auto Stereoscopy... (2, Insightful)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#30699018)

I don't see any manipulation unless these companies were making an a lot of money over the manufacturing cost of the sets...

Technology improves and most of the time the new technology costs more money to implement.

People need jobs and something to work on, so they spend their time improving the technology. I hardly doubt it's some grand conspiracy.

Yes the manufacturers want to push 3D as the next new thing so that they can continue to sell expensive TV sets, but it's not as if the new sets don't cost more for them to manufacture. Nor is anyone forcing you to purchase a newer TV. The OPs view is one from an individual who is ignorant of the engineering and development that goes on in the world. Not to mention the continued economic growth necessary to maintain a large economy.

Re:Auto Stereoscopy... (2, Interesting)

CyberLord Seven (525173) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698768)

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 the theater.

With the popularity of 3-D soaring this last year - it was not just Avatar, there were many good 3-D movies: Monsters Vs. Aliens, Up and probably some more I don't remember right now - the television manufacturers AND the cable stations will all want to jump on the band-wagon.

Will it work?

At first thought it seems like the 21st Century version of quadraphonics to me, especially if I have to wear dorky glasses with a cable! The glasses I saw on the news this morning had a cable. That ain't gonna' wash with me or anyone I know.

Re:Auto Stereoscopy... (1, Insightful)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698792)

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.

Competition (1)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698818)

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.

Re:Competition (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698932)

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. The TV's actually got smaller when switched from a standard measurement to widescreen.

There is no smaller company with feature creep. Do you know what happens to them? Go look at sanyo, for an example of that.

Compete, and you get bought out, even if it's unintentional. Companies are milked by being bought out regularly and left to dry. It's quite legal and common.

Re:Competition (5, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#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:Auto Stereoscopy... (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:Auto Stereoscopy... (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698976)

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:Auto Stereoscopy... (2, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698890)

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 think, "Who wants these features?" But I guess it's a marketing thing. They make you buy the super-high-end 60" TV to get the 5-day weather forecast on your TV, but then they also force you to accept the 5-day weather forecast if you want a big TV with good black levels. Yeah, I know, you can ignore the weather forecast, but it still makes the menu systems and remotes needlessly complicated. It's hard to find something that has the right balance of features.

Re:Auto Stereoscopy... (1)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698910)

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 also streamlined the OS substantially. While this makes my laptop nice and fast, it breaks a lot of functionality. (E.g. the linker doesn't allow duplicate symbols in linked files any more like the old ones did, this breaks a substantial number of programs.) Coupled to this is that up until 10.5 when they started optimizing for Intel chips, every new release of OS X ran faster on the same hardware than the previous release. I was just using my girlfriend's 1.3 Ghz PPC that ran 10.4 easily. For the Intel chips, that rule is still true, every release is faster than the previous one. The point is that none of these things are "feature creep" like you say. Maybe itunes has some additional stuff like the genius recommendations but show me a software package that doesn't add features.

Active glasses? (1)

sanosuke001 (640243) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698516)

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?

Re:Active glasses? (3, Funny)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698536)

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

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

Re:Active glasses? (5, Informative)

fridaynightsmoke (1589903) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698582)

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:Active glasses? (2, Informative)

XDirtypunkX (1290358) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698968)

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

Re:Active glasses? (2, Informative)

fridaynightsmoke (1589903) | more than 4 years ago | (#30699074)

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: []

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? (1)

Change (101897) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698590)

Unless you can develop a backlight that can switch polarizations easily and quickly (or a filter over the TV that can switch back and forth), how would the TV produce alternating polarized images? It's easy at a movie theater, you just have two projectors, each with their own polarizer. It could be done with a projection type TV (such as with a polarized color wheel for DLPs), but I'm not sure how it would be accomplished with a direct-view LCD or plasma TV.

Re:Active glasses? (2, Informative)

XDirtypunkX (1290358) | more than 4 years ago | (#30699082)

LCDs themselves are switchable polarizing filters, so all you need to do is stack 2 LCD panels on top of each other. That way you can have one that does color and one that changes the angle of polarization.

In fact, that's exactly how the iZ3D monitors work.

Re:Active glasses? (2, Interesting)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698612)

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

Re:Active glasses? (2, Informative)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 4 years ago | (#30699080)

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.

Re:Active glasses? (1)

fredjh (1602699) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698632)

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).

Re:Active glasses? (1)

fredjh (1602699) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698710)

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

Re:Active glasses? (1)

Alan Shutko (5101) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698676)

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:Active glasses? (1)

XDirtypunkX (1290358) | more than 4 years ago | (#30699104)

No convenient way, apart from a second LCD panel.

Re:Active glasses? (2, Informative)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698772)

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? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698958)

The linear polarization systems did that. The circular ones don’t.

Re:Active glasses? (1)

WeatherServo9 (1393327) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698776)

Active glasses are typically better at reducing "ghosting" which occurs when each eye receives some information from the other eyes frame that should really be blocked. The glasses themselves are cheaper in a polarized system for sure, but I wonder how would the overall cost of everything would compare; is creating a tv capable of polarizing the image appropriately vs. just a regular screen with fast enough refresh rate and active glasses similar in cost?

Re:Active glasses? (4, Informative)

bobdehnhardt (18286) | more than 4 years ago | (#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....

Oh they're older that that. (1)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | more than 4 years ago | (#30699012)

Sega had those things for the Master System in 87 or 88. By that I mean you could buy them in the store. (I had a pair when I was a kid. They worked ok but seriously the SMS was no 3D system. It might have been better if it came out on the Saturn or DC.)

Re:Active glasses? (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 4 years ago | (#30699094)

They were usable with 3D video games like "Descent" with proper video card support back then too.

Because refresh is cheaper than resolution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30698908)

TFA: 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.

What do active glasses give you that polarity glasses wouldn't?

Suppose your goal is to display 1920x1080x120Hz in 3D.

There actually exist [] 3D LCD displays that use passive (polarized glasses) hardware, but they also appear to use software to do row/column-sequential content, that is, to change the polarization of each row (or column) of pixels as it's displayed.

It's hard/impossible to make an LCD panel switch the polarity of every line simultaneously. The backlight isn't polarized, only the little pixels in front of the backlight are polarized. So line-sequential polarization (on an LCD display, each row is rendered simultaneously, unlike CRTs with a scanning beam) enables you to use passive glasses, but effectively cuts the vertical resolution of the panel in half.

The easier alternative to line-sequential polarization is field-sequential polarization, in which you cut the refresh rate of the panel in half. Compared to building a panel that can do 1920x2160p at 120Hz (and line-sequential polarization and cheap passive glasses), it's far cheaper to produce a 1920x1080p panel (which have been in production for some time now) and drive it at 240Hz (which is new). If the a 1920x1080x240Hz panel is more than $100 cheaper than a 1920x2160x120Hz one, you still come out ahead even if the LCD-shutter glasses cost $100.

That's my hunch.

It's also probably easier for cross-compatibility to have 3D content in field sequential format, too. Displaying a 3D Blu-Ray on a non-3D set? Very easy to have the player discard alternating fields and send only one eye's view at 120Hz. Probably not so easy (given the nature of video compression) to discard alternating lines of content on a 1080p screen. Going the other way works too -- no mucking about with line doublers when displaying 2D content at 1920x1080 on our imaginary 1920x2160p alternating-line-polarizing screen.

Finally, retrofitting. An external transmitter that plugged into the video cable / video card would be pretty easy to build for $5-10 in additional parts, and if it lets me use my 1920x1080x120Hz set to play games in 3D at 1920x1080x60Hz, that might be worth $120 for glasses and an external IR transmitter to control them.

New TV or not? (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698520)

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.

Re:New TV or not? (3, Informative)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698786)

Nvidia is adding support for 3D video/Blu-Ray for all of their GT200/300 video cards via drivers. Yes you do need a 120hz+ display, however a lot of TVs don't do true 120Hz but simply interpolate a 60Hz image twice every frame to achieve "120Hz."

My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movies (4, Interesting)

Change (101897) | more than 4 years ago | (#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:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30698584)

My experience is that if you continue to watch past those 10 min, you get used to it.

Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie (3, Insightful)

electricbern (1222632) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698686)

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:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30698724)

We left Avatar after 45 minutes. I wear glasses, so the extra glasses sat too far away from my eyes making focusing on the film quite hard. Wearing two pairs of glasses isn't exactly comfortable either. The reason we left though, was because my girlfriend (who wears glasses as well) got nauseous and had to throw up.

I won't be seeing films in this pseudo-3D in the cinemas any more any time soon.

Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie (5, Funny)

momerath2003 (606823) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698770)

Oh, you have a girlfriend. Are you going to get married?

Do you love her?

Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie (2, Informative)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698864)

At least credit xkcd when you rip-off its comments: []

mods (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30698882)

mod this clown down, this is meant to be a serious discussion form, who let the 12 year olds in? oh wait, this is slashdot. . .

Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie (2, Interesting)

bazald (886779) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698854)

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.

Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698862)

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.

Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie (2, Interesting)

Zen-Mind (699854) | more than 4 years ago | (#30699034)

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 people will put effort in the 3D.

Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 4 years ago | (#30699042)

In my screening of IMAX Avatar 3D nobody in the vicinity of about 20 people walked out. None of my friends who watched it walked out as well.

My sampling is biased though. Many of my friends are structural biologists like myself who used to watch stereoscopic pictures of protein structures and though stereoscopic is very different method, it still trains your eyes out of usual correlation between focus and eyes' angle.

I work in a production facility. (3, Interesting)

fredjh (1602699) | more than 4 years ago | (#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. (5, Insightful)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698574)

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*

Re:meh. (3, Funny)

nizo (81281) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698712)

Just wait, once 3D tv gets old, we will move on to 4D tv, which will be totally awesome!

Re:meh. (5, Funny)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698810)

Except it'd totally ruin the ending.

Re:meh. (1)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698878)

By 2025 it'll be Smell-O-Vision split-screen Cinerama IMAX with tingler support.

If non-killer robots haven't been perfected by then, midgets will tilt your couch with the on-screens action!

Re:meh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30698926)

You mean TiVo?

Re:meh. (1)

Steve Max (1235710) | more than 4 years ago | (#30699046)

4D? As in, the images change not only with width, height and depth, but also with time? That's genius! Why hasn't anyone thought about this?!

Re:meh. (1)

Kenshin (43036) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698720)

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

It's difficult enough in the theatre. I have to wear glasses over my glasses. Keeping them comfortably balanced is an ordeal, and then there's the problem of reflections bouncing back and forth between the two shiny surfaces.

Makes me wish I wore contacts.

Re:meh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30698840)

I cant wait for these 3d's Tv's to come out. Then the price of LCD/Plasma tv will really start to drop.

I don't get it (4, Insightful)

Brandee07 (964634) | more than 4 years ago | (#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?

Re:I don't get it (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698726)

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 various other visual cues to figure out a fair amount of the 3D information.

So my experience with watching 3D movies so far is that, once I get into the movie, either I don't notice the difference or I do. If I do notice the difference, it's because the 3D effect isn't working very well and the whole thing is unsettling. Like I sit there and think, "Oh, weird, I feel like I should be seeing this from a different angle. That looks weird and artificially 3D." Or if I'm not thrown off, then I just perceive it as pretty much equally 3D as if I were watching it normally, since when I'm watching it normally, I'm extrapolating a third dimension anyway.

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

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#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 (5, Insightful)

xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D (1160707) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

cobblers (1)

fireylord (1074571) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698922)

The short answer is "because we can".

and the short reply to that is no, we cant properly yet. 3dtv is not 'there' yet

Re:I don't get it (2, Interesting)

JumperCable (673155) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698736)

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 quality content they are not likely to reproduce right away.

The content will indeed be unique, but I don't think the public will be as intrigued by to than anymore more than the occasional novelty. 3D will never go beyond that until they learn how to use it in a seamless non-distracting way.

You answered your own question (2, Informative)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698806)

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

Re:I don't get it (3, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30698826)

I totally agree!

Went to see Avatar and figured I'd try 3D for the first time... talk about over hype! The only thing that really jumped out at me was when an object in the foreground would pass by, then it was noticeable, otherwise it was like any other movie.

nice product (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698592)

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 think will ever be.

Re:nice product (1)

Logical Zebra (1423045) | more than 4 years ago | (#30699102)

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.

Re:nice product (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | more than 4 years ago | (#30699120)

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.

Sharp's product used the lenticular lens technique of displaying independent images to each eye. It works at different viewing angles and different distances fairly well, though of course there is a sweet spot for best effect.

So it can be done without glasses of any kind, passive or active. And the effect can be quite decent, especially on computers that are already synthesizing a display from 3D data. And... you're right. It wasn't compelling. $700 for a 17" monitor when you could get a 42" for the same price meant it was dead on arrival. It's now discontinued.

Sad, really. I wanted one, but I didn't have stupid money to spend on it, which was what it took.

Flicker comes back (5, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698594)

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

Killer app: porn (4, Insightful)

base3 (539820) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698608)

It's like those 38-DDDs are right in your face!

Re:Killer app: porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30698804)

ouch, my neck.

Cant even find the remote half the time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30698630)

Ill wait for a real 3d holographic TV. As often as I cant find my remote I would never be able to find my 3d glasses.
Then what happens when we are having a party and have like 15 people over, take a look and pass them along ?

That's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30698640)

because Microsoft is busy making 3D people, aka Natal.

Not Parallax?? (2, Informative)

X86Daddy (446356) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698650)

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.

3D has no appeal to me or many I know... (3, Insightful)

cjmnews (672731) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698652)

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.

Why care what MS thinks? (0, Flamebait)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698672)

Give me ONE example where MS has ever been on the ball. They are always late to every party.

And it has served them well. I don't think they do it on person, just that MS is very susceptible to the "not invented here" syndrome. If MS cannot control it from the start, it doesn't want it. And then it comes in late, announces that it will soon have something superior out and hope that buys it enough time to get its second version out, because the first sucks donkey balls as MS fails to have learned any lessons from watching everyone else.

But since MS is doing fine in a bad economy while its competitors are either dead, dying or to small. Sony is making record losses, Nintendo survived this round but each round is a huge risk for them. The other unixes are gone, Apple is doing fine but its catch-up is to slow and OSX is getting older everyday.

Basically, never bother watching MS for the next trend.Rather watch them to see what trends have turned into every day reality.

Wii not MS - Re:Why care what MS thinks? (1)

happy_place (632005) | more than 4 years ago | (#30699084)

I was confused by that segue too. If anything the game controller that would best fit 3D would be the WIImote on the WII. A clever 3D implementation might even be able to extend the look of the wiimote to show the player where his or her lightsaber would be and you could almost have an immersive experience, coordinated motion and display. Of course, since Nintendo seldom pushes hardware performance, who knows if the box itself is fast enough to do all the calculations required. Still it would be cool to see stuff through my 3D-specs shooting out of my Wiimote and videogame bad guys.

3D just doesn't excite me (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698680)

I thought Avatar looked great. I thought the use of 3D really enhanced the experience. I wouldn't want to have to put on stupid glasses every time i want to watch something though.

Glasses are something you can lose, or break, or not have enough of for everyone in the room. Meh. It sounds like too much work. I just want to plunk down in front of the boob tube and veg out.

3D P0rn (0, Redundant)

strangeattraction (1058568) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698696)

It will not be viable until we get 3D porn. Then I'm in :)

They Have A Point... (5, Interesting)

TooManyNames (711346) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Sony rescinding "NIH" attitude with 3DTVs (4, Informative)

Silentknyght (1042778) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698730)

An article on Sony and "betting it all" on 3D TVs [] 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.

Please no glasses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30698760)

I don't know how they think they can ever sell these things as long as they require glasses. They're uncomfortable, especially if you already wear glasses. If you're wearing the glasses, trying to do something else at the same time you're watching TV will be difficult. Everybody watching needs their own glasses. Having to take off and put on the glasses all the time will be a pain. Glasses are the reason 3D has never been done in the home before, even though it could be. Glasses have always been the failing point of 3D, and always will be.

Re:Please no glasses (1)

nsayer (86181) | more than 4 years ago | (#30699020)

How else do you expect one screen to show each eye a different image than to put some sort of filter in front of one or both of them? And how else do you expect to achieve that without glasses?

Me? I hate 3D because I have only one eye, and no 3D technique yet devised has not sucked in some way for us monocular folks.

Re:Please no glasses (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30699086)

How else do you expect one screen to show each eye a different image than to put some sort of filter in front of one or both of them? And how else do you expect to achieve that without glasses?

Lenticular displays and holograms have been doing it for ages. The main problem with a glasses-less display is they generally have a “sweet spot” where you have to sit to see it properly, thus only one person can watch it and that person can’t move.

Me? I hate 3D because I have only one eye, and no 3D technique yet devised has not sucked in some way for us monocular folks.’re whining because it can’t magically make you see something that you can’t see anyway? Give me a break.

not like HD adoption (1)

kirkb (158552) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698762)

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 probably won't be hindered (much) in those areas. It'll be convincing people that they want it.

Fail (unless the porn industry embraces it) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30698788)

This technology will find it very difficult to move ahead because for the most part it actually distracts from the story. It may succeed for a few 'visual effects' driven, plotless movies (Star Trek anyone?) but on a recurring basis, it won't add value to a weekly series. OTOH, if the porn industry embraces it (porn is, after all, visual and plotless by definition) and perfects it to the point that the viewer doesn't think about it /at all/, then it may be able to become mainstream. The impediment to this is the location of the bright shiny new 3D TV. Many folks who will watch porn by themselves on their PC will find it inconvenient to watch in the family room with the spouse and kids.

Call me when... (1)

CFBMoo1 (157453) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698852)

A> They come up with working holodecks.

B> Working hologram displays like that chess board in Star Wars or Lea sending a message to Obi-wan through R2D2.

I'll pass on systems where I have to wear hooky glasses with a 2D surface. I want to use my unaided eyes for this only and bonus points if you can make it so I can feel what is being projected within limits. (IE. No real lava or balls of plasma for Discovery Channel shows.)

Microsoft is the voice of reason? (1)

TheReverandND (926450) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698896)

Microsoft is the company telling you why the latest and greatest thing isn't so great? Weird. You'd think they'd be hyping 3D display support in Windows 8.

Re:Microsoft is the voice of reason? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30699088)

Microsoft always been the opposite to the voice of reason. Why have 3D TV when there is so few content for it and add so little to the experience? In the other hand, games are the usual pusher of the boundaries of what hardware can do. Games are personal (not a social experiencie where you need to have a pair of glasses for everyone around), trying to be in a way or another 3d since 20 years ago, and if there is a way to take advantage of it, a game will be the 1st to use it.

Do these not suck? (1)

nsayer (86181) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698944)

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 style), or the image flickers badly. My wife wants to see Avatar in 3D. I'll take her, because I love her and want her to be happy, but I'm not looking forward to it.

Headache making glasses? (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30698990)

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

3d tv never ubiquitous? (1)

kirkb (158552) | more than 4 years ago | (#30699006)

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.

It's still the same (crap) content (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 4 years ago | (#30699036)

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 quality of programmes - whcih is the only thing that would increase the amount of TV that people as a whole would watch.

We already know that audiences are willing to put up with very low quality pictures - video recorders proved this and pretty much defined the minimum acceptable quality. No one has ever said to me "I would have watched <whatever> on TV, but the technical quality of the broadcast was too low". However everyone I know (including myself) frequently won't watch programmes if the acting / story / premise / genre / script is poor.

I would guess that since TV companies aren't able or willing to improve the programme content, that doesn't leave much of a differentiator, so gilding the lily (or polishing the turd) is the only way they can try to shift viewers from one low quality show to another. The only people who stand to make out of this new fad are the hardware manufacturers.

Nay I say: Blame the focus groups. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30699062)

Nay I say. I just don't need 3d, it's that simple. I don't really want to wear glasses other than vision glasses, as I would find them distracting. I don't want to upgrade technology, I don't really find the content that much better...if anything as others have pointed out I find it distracting and cheesy. Whaqt is the upside? I can't believe that execs are making such a huge mistake. They are confusing one-off "wow" appeal for long term preferences. Note to execs: That's a problem with focus groups. Next time try a focus group for 3 years and then ask what they think. Stupid execs. Stupid.

I'll wait until 4D (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30699072)

I'm waiting for 4D.

I don't get it (1)

nick357 (108909) | more than 4 years ago | (#30699108)

I saw Avitar a couple of weeks ago in 3D and it looked great. I specifically arrived at the theater to catch that showing. If I were to see it again, I'd probably try to catch it in 3d again if it was convent. I didn't mind paying the extra few buck and wearing the stoopid glasses.

Then about a week later, I went and saw Up in the Air. It was a great movie too. However, if it had optionally been offered in 3d, theres no way in the world I would have made a special trip or paid a penny more to see it in 3d.

Probably for 95% of what I watch on tv, 3d is of no interest to me. Even if Avitar where to come out in 3d at home. I am not sure the 3d would really be the same on a home screen. Even a 50 or 60 inch screen. And certainly not something under 40 inches.

I can see a lot of push back from consumers on this.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>