Ready or not, the latest 3D technology is coming home
By Ben Drawbaugh 
posted Oct 26th 2009 11:36AM
posted Oct 26th 2009 11:36AM
3D, the basics
We have two eyes for a reason and while we've enjoyed stereo sound since-like-forever, stereoscopic images haven't quite arrived. At its core, 3D is as simple as using two cameras to capture the data that our eyes would, but it's the display part that's proven tricky. Ultimately, the technology has to find a way to present each eye with a different variation of an image, at that point our eyes and brain do the rest.
Circular polarized or active LCD shutter glasses
The one thing that hasn't changed about 3D is the need for glasses -- if you're holding out for 3D on a big screen without glasses, you're going to let this generation of 3D pass you by. The technology in the glasses varies by a lot and the main two types these days are circular polarized and active LCD shutter. Both serve the same purpose, to ensure each eye sees a different image, but in much different ways.
RealD circular polarized filter in front of a projector
One of the problems with circular polarized 3D is that a special silver screen is required and some argue it can negatively affect the color accuracy. But what's worse is that most of us don't have a projector at home and so far only a few HDTVs like the ridiculously expensive JVC GD-463D10 LCD TV at $9,200 can pull off the same polarization trickery.
LCD shutter glasses
So in comes the LCD shutter glasses -- the technology itself has actually been around for some time, in fact there were eight Sega Master Systems games that worked with shutter glasses dating back to the 80's. But the technology was limited by the display technology of that era which could only show 480i at 30 frames per second, which worked out to about 15 FPS per eye in 3D -- so yeah, the flickering could make you sick.
Basically the way shutter glasses work is each lens can be blacked out very very quickly to synchronize with a frame displayed on the HDTV. This way a different 1920 x 1080 progressive image can be shown to each eye.
Notice that the LCD shutter on the left is closed.
An IR emitter connected to the TV sends signals to the glasses to keep 'em in sync. In larger demos, multiple emitters are mounted throughout the venue to ensure all the glasses get the signal. This is obviously less than ideal for a large movie theater, but shouldn't be a problem at home.
IR emitter used in Pansonic's 3D demo
The other reason shutter glasses make sense at home is because they don't limit the viewing angles of the display -- not to mention the glasses are more expensive and someone would likely steal them from a theater. But besides these advantages, proponents argue that the colors are more accurate, there's less ghosting and smearing, and it is argued that the contrast is greater between the left and right eyes. So, you add all these reasons together and the technology should provide the most realistic and reliable 3D technology ever unleashed on consumers -- at home or anywhere else.
It's not all good though, besides the cost of the glasses and the added emitter in the TV, some say that there is added flickering, and with the shutters closing in front of your eyes, the image is dimmed a bit. Both Sony and Panasonic claim these are no longer issues in thanks to the super fast refresh rates and brightness available on the latest HDTVs.
Short Panasonic promotional video about how its 3D technology works
Sony, Samsung, Mitsubishi and Panasonic
Yes, you read that right, all four of these tech giants are pushing the same home 3D display technology. While Samsung and Mitsubishi have been demoing its DLP HDTVs with shutter glasses for-like-ever, both Sony and Panasonic have been showing LCD and Plasma (respectively) HDTVs that can display 3D HD at CES, CEDIA and other shows. In fact Sony and Panasonic promise to release the first consumer 3D capable displays next year. That last part is an important one, so listen up: both will offer HDTVs next year that will work just like any other HDTV today, but will also work with 3D. So not only are the HDTVs going to be fully backwards compatible, but supposedly the new sets won't cost much more than a normal HDTV. In fact Panasonic believes that in the next few years most of its HDTVs will be 3D ready.
XpanD LCD shutter glasses and special 3D Blu-ray player used in Panasonic's 3D demo
But why can't my current HDTV do 3D?
We know what you're thinking, you just bought a new HDTV and you want to know why it can't handle 3D. Even if it was possible to add an IR emitter to keep the shutter glasses in sync, the experience at 30 FPS per eye wouldn't be as enjoyable. And just like when the first 1080p HDTVs hit the shelves without the ability to actually accept 1080p input, the current crop of 120hz HDTVs can't actually display 120 frames per second -- only show each frame of a 60 fps signal, twice.
3D sources
Of course, 3D-capable displays don't do much without 3D content, and the good news is that most of the infrastructure needed for 3D in the home is already here thanks to HD. With the new 1.4 spec, HDMI has been updated to accomdate 3D and the first source is almost guaranteed to be Blu-ray. In fact as we speak the BDA is working on standardizing the storage of 3D movies on a Blu-ray Disc. It actually isn't nearly as hard as it sounds, because what is essentially needed is to up the spec from 1080p at 30 FPS to 1080p at 120 FPS. In fact a 50GB Blu-ray Disc has more than ample capacity to handle a 3D HD movie thanks to the wonders of video compression where only the difference of each frame is stored. So 3D movies only require about 50 percent more space, and the one thing about the new 3D Blu-ray standard that has been determined, is that every 3D Blu-ray Disc will include a 2D version of the movie.
3D camera used to broadcast a College Football game on ESPN.
This part might surprise you, but there have already been 3D broadcasts of major sporting events. Using RealD's circular polarized technology, ESPN broadcasts 3D presentations of major sporting events to theaters around the country. The most recent was the USC vs Ohio State game on September 12th, but other events like the National Championship game last year, and the Olympics before it, were beamed to theaters in 3D. And let us tell you, if you haven't seen your favorite sport in 3D, you're really missing something. In fact we wouldn't be surprised if the real killer application for 3D in the home was sports. Sure movies will be the first to be delivered thanks to the slow evolution of broadcast technology, but we still have our hopes that ESPN 3D will be next. But while we wait for CableLabs and the SCTE to hammer out the details of a 3D delivery standard, satellite subscribers in the UK appear to be on track to get a 3D channel next year.
But not everyone can see 3D
When we say that 3D isn't for everyone, we mean it. In fact it is estimated that 4 percent of us are actually physically incapable of seeing 3D no matter what the display technology. And even worse, according to the College of Optometrists in Vision Development, "Research has shown that up to 56 percent of those 18 to 38 years of age have one or more problems with binocular vision and therefore could have difficulty seeing 3D." So if you are one of these affected, it might be time to see an opthamologist and get screened for amblyopia. And if you happen to be blind in one eye you can still watch 3D, but it'll just look normal to you -- assuming of course you have the glasses on.
Where we go from here
One thing we weren't able to learn in our quest for 3D knowledge was how compatible these different technologies are. Essentially we assume that the functional compatibility between the two main 3D display technologies described above are like the differences between LCD and Plasma -- in other words, they both connect to the same HD set-top-box and Blu-ray player -- but until the BDA announces the final details of the 3D specification there isn't really any way to know for sure. But it seems that if Blu-ray was compatible with both circular polarized and LCD shutter glasses, then certainly whatever broadcast standard or game console announced down the road would also work with both.
Like it or not, 3D is coming and just like HD before it, there will be plenty of technology pundits predicting its demise. The problem right now is very few have had the chance to check out the technology and if you have been lucky enough to see it, it is hard to convey how cool it is to others. On top of this, 3D has a long road ahead because most people think they have seen it because they've tried the anaglyph glasses during a Super Bowl Commercial. The other big hurdle is the whole stupid looking glasses argument -- which doesn't make that much sense since you'll be wearing them in the privacy of your own home. Now we know that the same technology lovers who read Engadget would never hate on any new technology without experiencing it first hand, but tell your friends and family that something new is coming, and no it isn't like anything else they've seen.
sure, a lot of people are going out and paying (exorbitantly) to watch 3D films, I haven't seen anything I quite fancy myself yet, but i'm hearing a lot of dissatisfaction from friends. not just regarding the price-point (which no doubt will drop as we start to recycle those glasses etc.) but in general the feeling i'm getting is that this has being over-hyped.
this is not the next-best thing. this is poor attempt at pulling folks back into the movie theatres-- and if doesn't pay-off in terms of a good experience for the customer it will be another wasted technology.
I recently snuck into G-Force (RealD 3D) and I was very surprised at how amazing the 3d was. The talking fly flew out of the screen at me and I actually ducked. lol.
I guess i am not the only one not excited.. The previous glasses idea was just as good as this one, and didn't require as much energy input! polarized glasses are cool enough.. and they are light.
I don't get it.. why do they have to make things complicated?
and why would you want 3D stuff on a screen? it is already hard to distinguish game from reality.. you gonna make it impossible?
Count me in the dissatisfied camp. I've seen a couple of 3D movies lately. The effect was okay, but both times I got a very nasty headache afterwards. Some Ibuprofen took care of that, but really, if I have to take medication in order to enjoy 3D movies, I'll pass.
It causes eye strain and the colors suck. I think 3D will remain popular for special events, but I would hate to have to watch every movie that way.
I get the feeling that Avatar isn't going to help the case of 3D any.
I'm in the not remotely interested camp. I've seen one 3D movie and it was quite impressive but it's nothing more than a novelty. Making regular films 3D would not add anything to the film and would only serve to distract you from the content. Frankly if a director has to rely on gimmicks like 3D to get audiences to watch his movie then I think it's time for him to look for a new career.
Sure, it's nice to see a few 3D films for the novelty value but it would be a disaster to make every film 3D.
I have a 67" 3D DLP with a pc gaming rig equipped with NVIDIA's 3DVision and when it works, it is without a doubt a huge step forward in the experience. If you've played Left 4 Dead in 3D you can never go back to playing it without it. It is that much better. Everyone I have shown has been blown away by the experience so I would have to say don't knock it til you've tried it.
@Paul
I really envy your gaming setup man......How much did the entire thing cost you?
I love how all these people who are "disappointed" with 3D then go on to say they haven't even seen 3D yet, but they're disappointed anyways, lol
Probably the same people who laugh at the fact that swine flu has been declared a "national emergency", just because don't know anyone that has swine flu, and them blame "the media" for hyping it up when in reality, it was only their own lack of education that was the problem.
Being "quick to judge" is fine, but judge while you actually know what you're talking about.
FYI, the 3D movies being shown in the theaters today suck compared to what is coming. I was at the Consumer Electronics Show this past January in Las Vegas and got a demo of Panasonics' LCD active shutter tech and it was AMAZING!!! You HAVE NOT and I repeat HAVE NOT seen 3D until you've seen it with this new tech.
They showed some footage of a basketball game shot from the stands and it was really like being at the game. They also showed some soccer games and both my friend and I (who couldn't care less for soccer) agreed we'd actually watch soccer games just because it was that amazing.
put me in the "very far far and remotely untouched" camp. given that digital 480i tv signal will still be the normal until year 2017 here in the Philippines and 95 percent of our population will still use 480i tube tv sets beyond that year, i doubt this will make any impact at all. After 50 years or so of Basic tube tv, HDTV has just recently starting rolling out on 1st class countries, my guess this 3D revolution is still in its infancy, lucky if i live to experience this (inhouse and generally widespread like playstations) in my lifetime.
until then, thank you IMAX for providing the future to us!
3D for GAMES is here and its pretty sweet...but it doesn't have the same problems as 3D movies.
1.Gaming with glasses isn't a big deal.(and you can usually adjust them to suit your eyes)
2.You are always in the "sweet spot".
(With TVs and cinema, the effect varies wildly depending on where you are sitting).
The biggest thing being ignored by advocates of 3D is that the effect of stereo vision only comes into play for things that are within about 9 feet. Beyond that you have to seperate the cameras much further apart..(Hyper 3D)..and then things start looking a bit like toy models.
A 3D movie of the grand canyon is mostly without any stereoscopic information. If anyone has watched 3D documentaries you will always find the director putting stuff up close near the edges of the frame...bushes, a bit of roadway, whatever. Gives impression of 3D, but the main stuff is still 2D.
I'm not ready.
Broadcasters aren't ready either.
If they can't push 1080p to your tv, how are they going to push 3d?
The sports argument is considerably weakened when you consider it will be years before you see the nfl in 3d coming to your house.
Sure, it may catch on eventually, but I don't see it gaining popularity in the near future.
I'm not ready and I never will be. I only have one good functioning eye....so 3d = poop to me.
Me neither. I have watched UP and Toy Story redone in 3D and while it's cool I can't say it really enhanced my viewing experience or even performed that convincingly.
Also I'm not into the space age shutter specs and stuff. I played virtual boy for 3 days when my family rented one back in the day and I'm pretty sure it gave me permanent eye damage, no way I am going to start watching TV with images being blasted into my face from an inch away! :P
The two best movies in 3d I've seen are Up and U23D.. both were spectacular. But I still got a headache about 1 hour in. The cheap glasses they supply at the theaters don't cover your peripheral vision either, which makes it even more distracting. The old school IMax Glasses were much better quality (wrap arounds)
I'm guessing the new tech that's coming out will have much higher shutter speeds to reduce the headaches. but will it be enough?
I wonder can i buy one of these to make "personal" 3D videos. That would be so hott!
Oh and can somebody help me upload a pic of myself on here? Everytime i do it it says upload successful and the picture doesn't show.
agreed. that would be really hot.
"Its like its coming right at me"
Well, you know what they say? Video formats take off if they're embraced by the porno industry.
RealD 3D Ron Jeremy may just be too much for people, though...
Actually, it was the adult film industry that drove the rapid public acceptance of VCRs. When guys saw that they no longer had to go to a sleazy theater to watch that stuff, they ran out and bought a VHS or Betamax.
I suspect that the ability to watch adult films in 3D will, at least in some small part, drive the 3D momentum. There have been a number of 3D adult films over the years, but -- to date -- no major manufacturer has put together a satisfactory way to view them at home. That's changing now.
As for doing your own, there are some 3D cameras on the market (Fuji just released one in JP), and there have been attachment lenses that convert a standard camcorder to 3D. So, yes, it can be done.
I noticed no one wanted to help you with your avatar. I also asked for help once as google turned up nothing useful and also go no response...
Well, wouldn't you know it. There's my avatar!
It's been about a week since I uploaded a pic and logged in so I'd have to say just give it some time.
Thanks Mr_Drift!
Finally, I can see the world in 3D! I was getting SUPER tired of 2.99D
"I'm not wearing any stupid looking glasses," Was exactly what I said when my kid wanted to take me to a 3D movie.
WRONG.
The 3D effect with the glasses totally blew me away.
"so before you knock the new technology before it's even out, click through and read about the technologies that might bring us a real 3D revolution"
Okay, I read through. NOW can I knock it?
It's really the same tech they were using when I saw Captain Eo in the 1980s. The shutter glasses might be a little better, but you still can't lay sideways on the couch while you're using them.
About the only good thing that can come from this is shorter movies, as studios realize that the longer features cause more headaches.
chispito,
This isn't the same as Captain Eo in the 1980s so you can lay on the couch sideways and still see it in 3D. Those glasses were just polarized and not circular polarized, which makes the difference, but shutter glasses work either way as well.
Sadly, no, you can't lay on the couch, even with circular polarization. Normally, when you tilt your head to side, the left-right separation of your eyes becomes up-down separation. But because it's a film, it doesn't realize your sideways, so while the glasses don't "fail", your brain does.
3D movies is very common in my county, Singapore. However, i would really like to see some 3D movies without the need of glasses.
Go to a live theatrical event then. :-)
The problem with current 3D working so well is that after a little while you don't even notice or care anymore. Granted it can make a "eh" movie a lot more compelling, ie "Beowulf", but for something like "Up" the real star was the story.
Also why don't they knock off a dollar from the ticket if you retain your glasses and re-use them?
But I don't wanna wear stupid glasses cuz Biff and his friends always wear them
+1
This has me puzzled about the storage on a BD. Surely AVC and most modern codecs store the delta between frames, however the delta between left, right, left, right will be much more intense, so surely a cleverer use of compression would be to have two delta's between the left eye frames and the right eye frames? Thus the capacity would be doubled but the picture quality wouldn't suffer from the increase it bit-rate to accommodate the constant shuffling from perspectives?
I'm not a compression expert, but the way it was explained to me is that a delta will be stored between the right and left image. So it won't just be the same technique applied at a higher frame rate.
There are numerous ways of compressing the data, the BD association just has to pick one of them. RealD's for instance uses diagonal filtering (kinda jagged-like) to compress both images into a 1080p image size. I know it sounds like garbage and the resulting quality would be terrible, but because of how it's done (fancy filters) and some post-processing (removal of ghosting, etc) it turns out looking really good. Way better than one would expect.
The difference between left frame and right frame is actually very small. Take your camera, and take two photographs outside, of the same thing (like a tree or a house). But between them, move the camera to the left by 2 inches. If you're really steady and did it right, you'll actually find the photos very difficult to tell the difference. Only subtle changes between the two frames. It's those subtle differences our mind picks up. It's far more different if you're looking at something up-close, but for most things, it's really very similar.
I'll say that this year's Panasonic 3d demo at Cedia Expo finally convinced me that there is a real market for the technology.
In years past, it has been a novelty at best, but this years crop of displays (Sony and Panasonic specifically) were far superior to anything they have shown in the past.
All of the material looked good, but the sports (Olympic intro and others) were simply outstanding. I really don't like the idea of wearing glasses over my glasses, but it's worth it in this case.
It's going to be great and it's going to be appealing to a lot of sports fans so it will sell.
You'll be able to buy prescription shutter glasses, but like you said, they are designed so you can wear both at the same time.
Right now I generally wear contact lenses when I know I'm going to a 3D movie. It's just easier than trying to fit the 3D glasses over my own prescription glasses. Less weight on my face, too.
Still, the new tech is pretty cool. George Lucas keeps threatening to re-release Star Wars and Indiana Jones in 3D, and I'd kind of like to see that.
"I really don't like the idea of wearing glasses over my glasses, but it's worth it in this case." -- For me, it's just barely possible (I wear large glasses, because I like peripheral vision). And I can't wear contact lenses; I blink too easily to get them in.
Porn in 3d? Oh lord this seems almost too good to be true... Wait what?!
Sure, the 3D effect in a movie theater is amazing. I'd go as far as saying it is definitely worth the added ticket cost. But what about the impact of 3D at home? The 3D is only effective over the expanse of the screen, so even the biggest LCD or Plasma will lag behind the 3D theater experience. Personally, I always have a headache after 2-3 hours of viewing a 3D movie in a theater, regardless of the implemented technology. I don't think I'm alone here. Imagine trying to sit at home watching hours upon hours of content in 3D. Even if I had the leisure time, I don't think I could handle the migraine.
In the end, I say bring on the 3D technology. It will be cool regardless of the literal headaches and limitations. I expect there will be mass consumer confusion regarding the technology. Most people are just beginning the realize the difference between Bluray and DVD. Imagine trying to explain the difference between 3D technologies!
Nuts to 3D. I want to know when holographic TV is going to be ready.
Great article, guys! One of the best I ever read at engadget!
This isn't 3D. Not even close. It's stereo - two flat images providing one fixed perspective.
3D imaging allows you to see the scene from any angle.
Call it what it is, or you won't have any words left when real 3D is in front of you.
@Paul
I really envy your gaming setup man......How much did the entire thing cost you?
Ben, I don't know what you're talking about. Stereoscopic imaging is universally referred to as 3D.
You're thinking of a hologram.
Love the depth (no pun intended) of the article! I've been playing around with an app called 3D Camera for my iPhone (http://www.juicybitssoftware.com/3dcamera), and it's been a lot of fun. It'd be great if Apple added some of this functionality directly to the hardware.
It's not just about the glasses not looking cool that turns people off. The glasses have a tint to them that makes colors look darker. Say bye bye pure white. Also if you relax and tilt your head instead of keeping it upright you'll see a double image instead of a 3D one. They usually try to do one size fits all so the glasses are not always the best fitting either. On a personal note polarized glasses give me headaches.
That must have been late in the game - the OSU fans look pissed.... IN 3D!!!
edit - 'That picture'
The first thought I had when I read the title was "3D Porn". Oh the disturbing possibilities.
lol. 3D Porn has been a reality for over a year now: dominicford.com
btw that thing looks like WALL-E's older skinnier brother
I can't wait til 3D content becomes more prevalent. I have a 67" 3D DLP and a pc gaming rig with NVIDIA's 3DVision and playing Left4Dead is so good that you have to experience it to really understand how much better it is. I think that will be the hardest part of getting people on board. So many people are writing this off as gimmicky and a waste of time and they haven't even tried it. Once you play some of these games in 3D you can't go back to playing it without it. It is THAT much better
I saw my first full color stereo film with polarized glasses in 1951, so the technology is not new and quite a few films were made in the 1950s for cinema viewing e.g. "Kiss Me Kate". The problem then was accurately synchronizing the film images but this is largely resolved by today's electronic displays. However, the issue remains that we do not see our 3-D world in the same way as a stereo film (we don't cut from long shot to close-up in real life for example and our eyes converge to focus on close objects) and this is one reason for the headaches, not the technology. Stereo will be great for games and porn at home but most movies won't benefit. It certainly didn't save "Beowulf".
Wow, you've been around for a long time.
There's actually a technique that directors are SUPPOSED to use when planning for 3D that takes this into account. It's called a depth map. The problem right now is that most movies aren't planned in 3D. This should be resolved within the next few years.
My main problem with current 3D is flicker. That's why you get headaches. The picture at theaters is usually 24fps. I get headaches at theaters even with 2D movies. The seemingly-slight difference between 24fps and 30fps makes a world of difference to my head. Theatrical movies need 60fps movies shown at 120fps. Then consider 60fps per eye for 3D, uh, stereoscope, at 120fps total.
Many comments above refer to the "gimmick" aspect of 3D. It's like anything else; if the creator uses the gimmick to justify the movie, the result is usually poor. If the "gimmick" is used as an addition to an otherwise great movie, the result is an even greater movie. A movie created just to use special effects would be as poor a movie as one created just to used 3D. Star Wars was a very good movie, based on story and characters; the special effects just added to the movie.
The flicker at movies is not 24fps. That is the frame speed but the flicker rate is increased by a shutter. However, when you view a TV screen the flicker may be reduced by a latency effect. The way people are affected by flicker differs widely. For example, i am not worried by flicker in the cinema but cannot watch a standard CRT. LCDs and plasma screens don't flicker at all for me.
Single lens 3D cameras will also help this sector move forward. Not mentioned in this article, and I've not seen the tech mentioned in Engadget so far, but they are already coming and will overcome some of the technical limitations of actually shooting 3D content. Multi lens cameras have inherant issues that cost film production crews hours of setup time. I've been following ISEE3D, and if you also heard of Battelle; well they're their development partner and they don't jump into bed with just anyone, if they get involved it has to be something amazing. So whilst there's tons of excitement about display technology, the capture technology that military and really serious players want is single lens. How else can you shoot live 3D using an endoscope inside the body? Something that'll make surgery somewhat easier. There's a whole world of 3D capture apps outside of entertainment. Small but useful developments like finger print scanners that also see depth of your finger print, much harder to fool one of those. Manufacturing quality control systems etc. And before you wonder 'how the hell can a single lens shoot 3D?', by clever use of optical lens properties and electronic shutter system, patented of course. The technology has been around for a few years; now it's being given a push because people are ready for it. Very solid and robust, perfect for the next generation of flying drones capturing all they see in 3D, live. I just wonder how long it'll be before it arrives in the consumer market :-) And yes, the technology development path for this will bring us single lens adaptors for that hyper expensive camera body of yours! Fun times ahead.
I believe you are talking about this camera.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/01/sony-single-lens-240-fps-camera-is-great-for-3d-and-2d-sports/
Kinda, single lens idea is same, but new ones I'm refering to are single CCD rather than double. Means the technology can be retro fitted to existing hardware as a lens module (for high end cameras at least). The Sony version does look good though.
Nice write-up, Ben! One minor technical correction for the article, though. The BD spec does not have 1080p @ 30 fps defined as an allowed video format, so the standard would not be moving from 1080p30 to 1080p120, but rather 1080p60 to 1080p120 (or I suppose 1080p24 to 1080p48 or 1080p96?) The current BD spec allows 1080p only at 24 or 60 fps; if you want 30 fps you have to use either 720p or 1080i. HD-DVD allowed 1080p30, but for some reason Blu-ray does not.
You know I just edited it from 60 to 30 after it went live. I just checked the BD specs page on Wikipedia and it says neither is supported.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray
I guess I could edit the post to say from 1080i 30 fps to 1080p 120 fps.
How strange, I could've sworn 1080p60 was supported. Oh well, I guess it's just a supported input on the TVs and output for BD players (e.g. when upscaling DVDs) but can't actually be stored on the disc. Well in that case I'm still surprised yes 1080i60 would be appropriate, but of course when using interlaced, the number afterward refers to fields per second rather than frames, so 1080i60 is effectively 1080i at 30 full frames per second.
Actually, the Blu-ray content will go from one 1080p24 stream to two 1080p24 streams, with the second one being differentially encoded from the first one.
The HDMI link will go from 1920x1080p24 (pixel clock 74.25 MHz) to 1920x2205p24 (pixel clock 148.5 MHz), so the bandwidth requirement will not be more than 1920x1080p60 (also 148.5 MHz pixel clock)
*Yawn*
Wake me when it can give people with monocular vison 3d.
Not interested.
I'll reconsider it out when one of my early adopter friends buys a 3D television, but at the moment I have no interest. I've seen several of the new 3-D movies and found it entertaining in spots (Angelina Jolie going 3-D in Beowulf was HOT), but mostly gimmicky. It wouldn't even be appropriate for 90% of the movies that come out each year.
@SteveJr_Ri
Nah man, there's still hope for you pirates out there.
The fact is, the way 3d works right now is by trying to simulate parallax, so while for movies i think you're out of luck, this won't be the case for games that achieve parallax in a different way. (think Johnny Lee, Wii 3d demo, he achieves parallax with head tracking instead)
And to all the 3d nay sayers... watch the 2d version.
There i solved your problem with the technology.
Now, for every one else, the main problem i see is the lack of content, i want it now.
Glasses + Astigmatism = Not going to happen for this guy.
Don't get me wrong, I've tried the 'glasses over glasses' and it was a dim, blurry and headache ridden experience. Let me know in 20yrs when we have 3D without any extra headgear.
I don't understand the comments that it's "inappropriate" for most content or a "gimmick."
Frankly I want video that refreshes the entire screen 180 times per second and also input that delivers 180 discrete frames per second. I want true 16 bit per channel color. I want pixel response times of .2 milliseconds and pixel dot pitches of .3mm on a 54" screen giving a resolution of 3840x2160. And I want rock solid 3D that lets my mind see that a basketball player's head is actually round even from the 8th row camera.
I don't see a reason why EVERYthing shouldn't be in 3D once the technology arrives. I can understand that adding 3D to Gone With The Wind or The Godfather would be tampering with the artistic vision. And I can understand that just as a few films are released each year in black and white, some artists may choose to work in 2D. But virtually everything else should be in 3D, when it becomes possible and accepted.
There's nothing wrong with 3D. The only reason almost everything (games, TV, film, computer interfaces) has been strictly 2D for the history of screen and video capture technology is because we didn't know how to make it 3D. Now we can. 2D is like mono channel audio.
HALLELUJAH!
3D in the home IS real... and REAL GOOD! We began selling complete 3D home media servers avout a year ago. A media server is a complete Windows-based PC, music media center, and a true 3D DVD player that can either play natural 3D movies, or can take your existing 2D movies and convert them to 3D on the fly. The results are truely in the "WOW" and "Holy Cow!" range.
The first time I saw it, I almost fell over because the effect was so real. There is not flitter or flutter - no headaches after watching a full length movie, and no after effects like ghosting that affects you like the old paper glasses. You see just a solid stream of visual affects that are truly emmersive. It even makes your We went to the CES show in january of '09, and our booth was swamped! Want more info? go to www.t3dmedia.com for all the specs and details. And yes - it is very affordable - well under two grand for a fully loaded system!
I saw U2 3D with the polarized lense technology and was pretty impressed with the effect. The bonus with the Polarized lense was no power source. Just put them on. It really does open up the visual medium. Now they not only have the space on the screen to use, but they have the space between the screen and the audience to use. Weird to think what movies might look like 10 years from now.
@ Keith Magee
"or can take your existing 2D movies and convert them to 3D on the fly"
Now THAT'S a trick. How on earth it would be able to do this I'm not sure.
Ben, excellent article on stereoscopic 3D, thanks so much. Very clear and comprehensive. Wanted to point out one small inaccuracy: 3ality Digital actually handled several of the sports broadcasts you mention. We did the BCS Championship, in partnership with Fox Sports, Sony and Cinedigm. We also did the first 3D broadcast of an NFL game with the NFL Network and RealD, and have signed an agreement with Cinedigm to bring more live productions to their 3D-enabled theater network in the coming year. We agree with you: we think live sports is going to be a key driver for this medium, which is why we set out to develop technology that simplifies and optimizes the production, transmission and display of live-action 3D.
Glad you enjoyed it, thanks for the correction.
TWO WORDS: 3D PORRRRRRRRRRRRN
I can see it now. Tons of these will be returned with broken lenses when everyone who sees you with this tries to throw something at it to create that 3D effect.
In the early days of movies, SOUND was considered an unnecessary gimmick...
Can't wait. Love 3d, try to see every movie I can in it. Can't wait for them to iron out a standard and start releasing them at home.
Am not a gamer, so could care less about that. Yes, really.
"only a few HDTVs like the ridiculously expensive JVC GD-463D10 LCD TV at $9,200 can pull off the same polarization trickery"
is not correct!
for less than 200 euros you can have a 22 inch 3d polarised screen! (its from zalman)
"And if you happen to be blind in one eye you can still watch 3D, but it'll just look normal to you -- assuming of course you have the glasses on." The answer is yes, but at least to me, the other colour/angle still isn't filtered out and it gives me massive headaches.
Video glasses with two small LCD screens are another good option, there are models with 640x480 resolution at decent prices now.
Hi Ben,
Very nice and instructive article.
Just one question, is there any chance to get your permission to translate your article to portuguese and post in my blog? Best regards!
I think I've figured out the big push for 3D.
You can't super-compress the movie for downloading and still have it work as 3D. I'll bet it wouldn't work right. I'm thinking that this is a clever way that someone came up with to fight (or at least delay) the inevitable transition from Blu-ray hardware to online downloading/streaming of movies.
what will the shutter glasses image on screen look like to the people not wearing the glasses, I think this has been answered but can't remember. If I am playing a game like Portal which would be AMAZING in 3D but only have one pair of glasses will my friends sitting next to me have a distorted image, headaches, or will it simply look normal to them. I have heard the comments about glasses free displays only having one sweet spot for 3D and am curious about the same issue for the people not in the sweet spot. I agree not all content should be 3D but for FPS players I can't see any reason not to want it, driving game fans should also welcome it. And for animal/nature documentaries I think this would be really cool also. I am just afraid of what advertisers will do with it, if 2012 Super Bowl is in 3D I will take off glasses for commercials so I don't have things continually flying at my face.
For me, 3D would be interesting for playing games.
Other than that, I'm not yet convinced I would enjoy it.
I've seen a few 3D movies in theaters and they all hurt my eyes and I often have to take my glasses off and look elsewhere before I can continue watching the movie. Ok maybe this won't happen on my 54" tv but still...
Also, like some have said before, I'm afraid some producers will use 3D is a distracting way. Image is important but content is even more important.
What ever happen to those 3D LCD screens they talked about?
them glasses r raw
Of course the stupid-looking glasses argument makes sense. Every pair I've ever tried are not exactly comfortable, then there's the fact that I already wear glasses, so I'm going to have to put these huge goofy uncomfortable ones over the glasses I already have on. It's a pain. I just want to watch TV or a movie casually.
Last year Mitsubishi brought a 3D TV to a local electronics store and I got to check it out. It had a 30 minute video playing of clips from different movies but the best part was the football clip. Sports are awesome in 3D.
Forget movies and sports... when enough porn is available in 3D then everyone will get it, of course claiming that it's because they want to see sports and movies.
Porn drive color imaging, movies, Polaroid, digital cameras, the internet and will now drive 3D. In fact, to take a 3D photo all you need is a static subject and take two photos around 3 inches apart. OK, not you have a 3D image of something, the technology will catch up to display it!