Sony teams up with RealD for 3D, headaches in the home
By Joseph L. Flatley 
posted December 21st 2009 10:39AM
posted December 21st 2009 10:39AM
posted December 21st 2009 10:39AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
waiting to buy my next TV till 3D has a firm foothold
@brendon I'm going to wait til I can get a 60-65" 3D TV for under $2,000....that should be within the next 2-3 years the way they are talking
@brendon I think you have some time to wait yet then. 3D is going to be a stupidly expensive extra and for 1st generation STBs & TVs, likely a broken one too. It isn't like you are missing out on lots of content either. In 2 or 3 years it might have advanced sufficiently to justify itself but I bet by then the next hyped thing will be 3D displays that do not require glasses. Maybe its best to ride things out until that happens.
@(Unverified)
you can already get a 73 inch 3d mitsubishi 3d tv for under 2000 and a 82 inch for as low as 2500 online
@(Unverified) a 60 inch goes for as low as $900
@(Unverified) remember NBC's 3D week? that was fun, but nobody wanted a continuation ... who will make material for this niche? I can make some guesses... http://yfrog.com/j8yvonnestrahovski3d02j
this could be a good thing for 3D enthusiast and all but those people that still see it as a gimmick won't be biting either way, but I would hope that if they have a 52" 3D LCD TV for $1,900 that they would include at LEAST 4-6 pair of those glasses with the TV free of charge
Just can't see companies passing up the chance to make extra cash on the glasses. Maybe one or two pair with the TV for free.
Sony, as well as other makers, have shown two-different types of 3D panels. One is one that uses shutter-glasses (this) and the other is one that uses polarized-glasses (like in the movie theaters).
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/01/ces-2009-sony-teases-with-high-quality-ps3-3d.ars
The shutter-glass approach is the simplest to implement because their current 240Hz panels along with HDMI 1.4 should be able to handle it. But in the future expect the shift to polarized glasses as the technology develops.
I was at RealD's R&D facility last week, and was able to see this 3D technology first-hand on a large flat-panel display with the "shutter glasses." I have to say, it's pretty incredible, and contrary to the headline -- not headache-inducing (at least in my experience).
Makes me feel that much better about keeping those RealD 3D glasses after AVATAR last night! Score!
@kill8joy lol same. i had to keep em as like a souvenir because that was THE. BEST. MOVIE. I. HAVE. EVER. SEEN.
@kill8joy I have over 30 pair of 3D glasses from the 3D movies I have seen this year with my wife and kids....
I asked the manager if the extra cost was JUST for the glasses and he told me yes....so when I said alright then, we have our own, he looked at me like I was stupid then said "well we can't really discount it as its programed into the registers that way". So either he didn't know what he was talking about OR he was full of shit.
@kill8joy Except of course that the 3D glasses you kept were polarized and will not work with the system being discussed.
LG on the other hand is actually selling screens in Korea that use Polarized glases, though I haven't heard whether they use the same polarization specs as the RealD glasses you get at the movie theater.
@earthbound loveship
I guess you haven't seen many movies then, or caught Dances With Wolves? Because Avatar is pretty much a remake of that movie.
Avatar was *okay*. Best movie ever of course, still belongs to The Godfather.
My favorite movie so far this year? A tie between The Hurt Locker and District 9. Haven't seen Up In The Air yet, though I hear it's excellent.
@(Unverified) Or you are full of shit since you probably don't know what you are talking about. That's an option too since I'm pretty sure you don't know dick about those terminals.
RealD in theaters causes a loss of brightness to the picture. I hope that if they use RealD for their television sets, they are able to fix it so that there is no loss of brightness.
@thunderbird - As I understand it, the loss of brightness in theaters is due to the way the polarization is applied. With the TV system, the only thing the light is passing through is the glasses on your face, ergo -- only a very very slight loss of brightness. (At least from what I saw.)
@thunderbird This has very little to do with the RealD technology use din the majority of theaters. All but a very few theaters use Polarized, as the glasses are dirt cheap and practically disposable.
This is Shutter technology which is much cheaper for the TV manufacturer to produce, just requires a different processing board that can handle 120Hz inputs and a blinking infrared LED on the front of the screen. Polarized takes a different, far more advanced screen, and will be less common in the home.
In other words, this likely has nothing to do with the technology that goes by the Label RealD that you have experienced in the movie theater, so any comparisons about brightness, etc. are worthless.
@thunderbird
ALL 3D systems cause a loss of at least 1/2 the brightness.due to the fact that you are blocking 1/2 of the light all of the time.
@RandomGuy I'm glad to hear that the brightness issues won't carry over into the television realm. Still, I'm apprehensive about whether 3D is the way to go. A lot of people (including me) just upgraded to HDTV's within the last couple of years and for the companies to expect that people will turn round and shell out more bucks for another television isn't realistic.
The freakiest part about this article is that my last name is Becker, and that last line freaked my brain out big time!
If you are going to make a claim like the technology contributes to headaches in the heading, you really should back it up in the post.
I hate shutter glasses.
I don't think the expensive end of the deal should sit around the house to be stepped on or lost.
I'd much rather pay more for the TV, and not have to worry about dropping a $2 pair of Polarized glasses.
@Jlee I agree, especially since you would have to keep them all charged, etc.
I like to think of it in the birthday party scenario. Most 3D movies are animated movies, you know for kids. Well now I envision someone inviting 10 sugar hyped kids over for 3D showing of whatever the latest Pixar movie is.
3D TV requiring Shutter glasses = TV priced $200-300 more than a non 3D capable set (obviously they will be phased in, and eventually there won't be a non 3D capable version), and then $100 per pair of extra glasses beyond the initial pair. Total cost of 3D investment for 10 kids to watch is $1100 - $1200. And $1000 of that investment is sitting on the faces of a bunch of unruly kids.
3D TV requiring Polarized glasses = TV priced $1000 more than non 3D sets. Glasses $3 pair. Total 3D investment $1027, $27 of which is sitting on the kids faces. No batteries to keep charged or replaced.
So yeah, for one or two people Shutter works, for large groups, Polarized makes more sense. The part that I find most frustrating is that polarized don't work with Plasma (my preferred screen tech). Of course I don't see why OLED wouldn't work with Polarized, so there is hope.
Over hyped gimmick 3D garbage...
You avatar ruins your message since it makes it seem you are just generally negative about everything and anything.
Also you should have said: !!!Over HyPed GimmicK 3D GarbagE!!! IdeaL for the Holidays!!
Avatar in IMAX 3D proved to use the polarized glasses system. I noticed the plastic polarized "lenses" were VERY large. Which made excellent sense in that in a real IMAX theater (i.e. full sized) you sit VERY close to the screen... so I did NOT have to swivel my head to make sure I saw through the main part of the glasses... I could follow all 3D action to the edges easily by swiveling my eyes, as it were.
Orrrrr everyone can just go outside and see real life in action :-)...
This is basically a dust collector waiting to happen... I cant sit and watch anything with glasses on my face... Now if its 3-D like Jaws in Back 2 the Future, count me in!
@andyg8180 Let me know when I can go outside and visit Pandora in real life.
I for one welcome our new 3D overlords. The only thing that sucks is the battery thing for shutter glasses. RealD in theaters is an elegant solution but I'm not sure why it's so hard to bring to homes.
3D is nirvana for Hollywood.
As they have clearly of late completely run out of original ideas (e.g., Sherlock Holmes.... then The Young Sherlock Holmes... soon to be followed by Sherlock Holmes vs. Predator etc), all they have to do now is re-make all their re-makes, again. [but in glorious 3D]
3D TV? Bah.
Give me holograms!
I refuse to sit for migraines and stupid glasses when watching TV at home. 3D Imax in theaters is one thing. 3D HDTVs *are* a stupid cash grab gimmick, with a technology that's still barely beyond the red and blue glasses phase.
I hope Sony get something this time around. They are really pushing the 3D by spending a lot of money, but they have to fight against the higher Yen to get some profits and that's when comes the South Korean rivals Samsung and LG where by even selling products at lower price they make way more profit than the Japanese companies because of the currency. The Sony marketing team should work really hard to put the word out on who's actually driving this 3D stuff.
Wow, I absolutely cannot believe the amount of complaining and whining. You'd think wearing 3D glasses was the end of the world!
The glasses produce the best 3D currently possible, makes anaglyph a joke. And the new technologies do a very good job of giving us true color 3D. No, it's not as nice as just watching 3D straight from the TV, but we don't have holograms working quite yet. :p
And with the new Blu-ray 3D spec, different TVs can use different technologies. You won't have to get shutter glasses if you don't like them (though many people have said they -- Panasonic's -- produces the best 3D).
You don't have to buy a 3D TV if you don't want it. All Bllu-rays will have 2D -- even the 3D ones. So instead of complaining, just buy what you want and go on. Let the rest of us enjoy a very impressive step in home theater technology... glasses and all!
-Pie
What's wrong with Nvidia's 3D Vision technology already out there? It works with most virtual reality video games and some 3d movies and images.
finally!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
look at this pics of the 3d glasses and some of the 3d tvs for late fab
http://www.sony.co.uk/hub/bravia-lcd-televisions/3/5?campaignId=12002698&s_kwcid=3d%20tv|4955308721