Samsung, JVC pick RealD tech for their new 3D LCD televisions
By Richard Lawler 
posted January 4th 2010 3:15PM
posted January 4th 2010 3:15PM
A part of 3D's assault on the home theater this year is a battle over which glasses technology each manufacturer will choose, and after locking up Sony RealD has announced its tech is coming alongside new displays from JVC and Samsung. While JVC's 3D LCDs will use circular polarized passive glasses (like the ones you've probably worn at the movies) Samsung is promising to work on both active shutter LCD and passive eyewear models -- no word yet on any Gucci tie-ins, but it's still early.
How about instead of wasting time dickin around with this crappy 3D glasses bullshit, manufacturers just invest the time and money into developing good, affordable 3D tech that does not involve glasses.
Until 3D is affordable and good enough without glasses to be the standard, keep this 3D bullshit away.
@Jordan
You've gotta start somewhere... I'm not against this at all
@Jordan
No-glass support is fine for a single viewer, but wont work for multiple people sitting in different spots. Glasses can handle that, nothing else can outside of real physical objects in front of you. (well I suppose you could have like 10 overlaying fields for set angles of intersection but then you would have the worlds dimmest TV.
@Jordan "Samsung is promising to work on both active shutter LCD and passive eyewear models"
There ya go!
@MarcusMaximus:
Ah, read that wrong, thought it said active shutter glasses.
But still, this is going to come out and never be fully supported, then it's going to be replaced by some non-glasses standard that won't be compatible with the old standard and it's just going to be one jumbled mess.
I'm all for progress, but manufacturers need to stop releasing every little thing and trying to make it the next best thing. I know they don't care about the consumer and just the money, but once the consumer gets fed up - the money is gone.
@Jordan
Because we as consumers would like to enter into 3d technology for under $2000. Glasses-free 3d, when it comes, will cost tens of thousands.
@Nicnac:
So you want to invest all the money now, and then have to invest a lot more all over again in the future?
We just barely moved into the world of high def, and most of the world is still behind in terms of that. I think people can wait a while for 3D.
@Jordan
Whats wrong with glasses?
The ones I used for Avatar were comfortable for the whole of the movie, and extremely inexpensive for the looks.
@Jordan
I'm with Luffy on this one. The sooner tech to actually watch 3D content on is available on the market, the sooner more content is going to be made in 3D. And as soon the demand for 3D content gets bigger, newer and better technology will start being developed.
Honestly. I don't get what all the fuss is about having to wear glasses. I wear sunglasses, and sometimes reading glasses. If they are well made and light enough you can barely feel having them on.
@mrkokkinos:
But 3D for movies is not just where things are going. The powers that be are trying to get 3D cable, 3D tv, 3D everything.
Are you going to wear glasses while watching tv?
Are you going to wear glasses while gaming?
I'm sure anybody, who doesn't already wear glasses, would be fine with wearing them for a short period of time, but be honest, how long would you be happy having to wear glasses EVERY time you looked at a TV.
3D has the potential to be a wonderful thing - when it is ready, and it's not yet ready.
@Luffy I saw Jaws 3D when I was a kid with polarized 3D glasses. Seriously, this BS with 3D glasses is a rehash of old tech and they're pushing it like it's new to sell you something.
As long as the tech uses headgear, color me unimpressed.
@Jordan
Why buy the first CD player that cost $800 and skipped when you looked at it wrong?
What about people who bought 'enhanced definition' or 720p TVs when so called 'full HD 1080p!!!' sets were double the cost?
Did anyone regret paying tons for a non-upscaling DVD, when they were introduced?
I for one, cannot wait for 3d to come home because despite the glasses, it changes EVERYTHING. Watching Avatar the second time, I realized that The Hobbit cannot be in 2d. It simply cannot be so anymore.
Finally, I have no illusion that glasses-free 3d is going to be available in the home for anyone living on a real-world salary for many years to come.
@Nicnac
Was high def really even known when DVD was introduced? Did it matter if it didn't upscale? In fact to the majority of people who don't care about high def, a regular dvd player is still fine. Most people want new TVs because they are thin, not because of high def. Most people buying new tvs don't have high def programming or blu ray.
Same goes for 720p tvs. A good majority of people don't really care about high def - mainly because of the cost.
This leads into why I'm against 3D with glasses. Why usher in a new technology and yet another format that the majority will ignore and will be obsolete in a year. Why bother buying these things when we all know very soon you won't need glasses.
Yes, you need to buy tech and not hold out for the next thing, but again, we JUST got into the high def age, and now we're trying to rush to the next thing before even enjoying what we have. It's just getting to be ridiculous.
VCRs were around for YEARS. Yes, they needed to go when they went, but the point is they worked very well for years. People bought them and were able to actually use the device before it was obsolete. Standard def was around even longer, and it's still working just fine for a vast amount of people. We need to develop new technologies, but we need to allow them to mature to their full potential before trying to rush them out the door right away.
Look at HDMI. How many revisions has that gone through now? Yes, it's nice the same cable can be updated for future things, and I would like it to be that way, but 1.3a/b/c/etc revisions in this short amount of time that it's been out. Ridiculous.
Some people are already calling for higher resolution tvs. Yes, I know the tech is being worked on, but hopefully they will allow it to mature before they release just like HD has been worked on for the past 10-20 years.
Does 3D have promise for the future? Yes, it indeed does
But it's not yet ready. 3D with glasses is like a technology in a wheelchair. It works, but it's crippled. (no offense to anyone)
@LAY "Whats wrong with glasses?"
Look at the picture next to the article. You can see from the light hitting their face compared to the light passing through the lenses and hitting their eyes that about 50% of the light is being lost at the lenses. Dull images is just one problem with glasses. What if you already wear glasses to watch television? What if you wear headphones? I personally use my Stax 404s for all movie viewing and there's no way I could wear them with glasses.
Besides, 3D is like special effects - nice for blockbuster movies that are all flash and no content (such as James Cameron's FernGully 2) but for movies that aren't all about effects it adds nothing.
@Jordan:
Actually, they're doing exactly what needs to be done if you ever want to see 3D in the home without glasses. The method of transferring the information from the disc (in this case, BD3D) to the screen is what needs to become mainstream. At the point it gets to the screen, that's where the left and right eye problem need to be solved, and where manufacturers need to put some serious R&D. But why should they? With your plan, the first company to succeed will be bankrupt because they sunk all their money into R&D for a technology which blows away the existing glasses solution in the home, but because you can't actually buy anything that *IS* 3D, all you can watch are your 2D movies. So those of us willing to deal with the glasses for now will help push the technology and delivery platform ahead, and those of you who can't stand the idea of "technology in a wheelchair" can sit this out while the rest of us hobble forward with the only technology available at the time. BTW: Do you own a car? Shouldn't you wait for the flying car or teleporters? It's transportation in a wheelchair... It's not nearly as convenient as being beamed instantly to your destination.
@Jordan I don't think 3D will ever be the norm for home viewing, at least not until some truly impressive holographic tech is developed.
But for gaming and certain types of movies or programming, I can see why it would be fun to have around.
@Agrabren:
I understand what you're saying, but you're still missing the point.
Yes, technology eventually needs to be released and profit needs to be realized. But how is the glasses technology really any different than the old red and blue glasses from 15 years ago? Besides not being red and blue, and slightly fewer headaches - how is it different?
Answer, it's not. It's still the same technology being deployed differently. You're right, it's all evolution, but 3D didn't work in the home before because of glasses and it's not going to work now because of glasses. I'm glad the tech is evolving, but the glasses are the hump that needs to be crossed before 3D truly works.
@Jordan I'm sorry, but this entire thread sounds ridiculously ignorant. You folks are talking about "glasses free 3D" like it was practically a done deal and just needed to be perfected and made cheaper, kind of like pixie dust. There are currently only three even remotely acceptable 3D technologies that don't require glasses (check http://gizmodo.com/5084121/giz-explains-3d-technologies for more info): parallax barrier with vertical strips containing both images, and very limited seating possibilities in front of the TV--definitely NOT a crowd pleaser, and most likely not a real contender long term. Then there are true volumetric displays that construct a real 3D image by moving image planes through space, such as spinning a screen etc. Interesting but bulky and limited in maximum picture size. Finally there is holography, which may be the true future of 3D. But it will be a while yet before we can create large nano particle screens that can dynamically change the interference patterns for motion pictures. The Japanese laser plasma research also looks extremely interesting, but I wonder if it's ultimately viable for cinematic 3D.
@patsy Wanting glasses free 3D imaging is a legitimate need. The technique and technology used in avatar is nothing more than a bump up in quality from movies from the early eighties. See: Jaws 3D, Friday the 13th:3D, and Amityville 3D. I was a kid then but I remember all of the talk of this being the future of movies... over 20 years ago. It didn't quite stick.
Whether glasses free 3D viewing occurs in 5-20 years from now, the technique will NOT resemble 1983 technology. 3D viewing that requires special glasses, sadly, is just a gimmick rehashed from the early '80s.
@DC MIKE Unfortunately, you're incorrect.
@RichardLawler your lack of explanation only strengthens my argument. School me.
@dietcokefiend There is 'lenticular' technology out there that can support multiple viewers. You have multiple nodes left and right where the correct image is fed to each eye. In between, you will not see the correct effect. So many people can sit side by side and get 3D. The problem yet to be seen is how still you have to remain. It might be a drage to have to sit more or less stock still. Talk about couch potatoes - more like couch statues. Polarized glasses might give a dimmer image but be much less restrictive on movement and position.
@Frith
Yeah, you lose 50% of the light. Thats how the glasses work. Half goes to one eye, half to the other eye. This is why IMAX 3D systems use two projectors.
@DC MIKE that analog 3d back then this is digital 3d no red and blue sh!t just movie in it right color read up and learn about it here is a link
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/digital-3d.htm
@Atlantian The movies I mentioned used polarized grey lenses. pay special attention to the third paragraph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaws_3-D
I was there, and I'm here to tell you... 3D polarized image tech is straight out of the eighties.
GIMMICK.
@DC MIKE Dude, 3D polarized glasses ARE what makes theater filling natural color 3D possible AT ALL at this time. It's a gimmick as much as the TV itself is a gimmick. You might has well harp about the limitation that we have to display moving pictures on a box in the corner of the room that we have to tediously watch "with our eyes" instead of having the pictures beamed straight into our brain. The so-called lenticular 3D approach is a joke. Not only are the seating positions limited, but not all positions get an equally good 3D effect because the parallax angle changes off axis, and the TV can only provide near perfect blocking for the viewer(s) in the center of the display. The further you move towards the sides the less satisfactory the experience. It's not really something that can be overcome without holography, no matter how much you may wish for it. In fact these lenticular displays are the real "gimmick" approach. Polarized glasses are currently the most pragmatic and satisfactory solution to the problem. If you are interested in the holy grail of glasses free 3D display, which will the REAL no-compromise solution once the technology becomes available, read up on computer generated holography (CGH). Here is a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Generated_Holography.
@patsy I'm saying it's a gimmick because it the same crap that was served up 27 years ago! The answer to 3D viewing isn't in polarized glasses technology! THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING!
Using glasses to simulate 3D viewing is not the answer! It is BS. It didn't catch on in 1983, and it won't now!
So until holographic tech or screen technology arrives en mass this rehashed 3D technology they're serving up WILL NOT catch on.
So at this time we DO NOT have a viable or desirable mainstream way to view 3D images in the home. That's just a fact, and chasing this problem with polarized glasses is nothing but a marketing ploy straight out of the early '80s.
@DC MIKE Wow, you're arguing with reality there, mate! Polarized glasses are EXACTLY the answer to 3D viewing today, the ONLY mass market answer. And rehashed? What does that even mean? I'm putting on the glasses and watching Avatar and getting a very convincing 3D effect in full color, to the point where I'm completed immersed in the picture and am forgetting about the enabling technologies. What more do you want with existing tech?! Yes, computer holography would be nice, but currently it doesn't even exist in the labs, so we're still talking decades away. Until then, you keep watching your 2D telly, I will gladly don some glasses to watch Avatar on my home projector, thank you very much.
@DC MIKE You're jumping to the conclusion that glasses are the reason that 3D didn't "catch on" in the 80's, while simultaneously overlooking the very real possibility that many people actually do enjoy the 3D movie experience provided by polarized lenses (clearly you don't enjoy the experience - perhaps you have an eye dominance issue that prevents you from getting the effect?)
Perhaps it didn't "catch on" because delivering polarized images from a home TV screen wasn't economically viable - equipping movie theatre's was also (almost) prohibitively expensive. Perhaps it's not even correct to say it didn't catch on. It did - it just didn't enjoy widespread use due to cost. It's popularity certainly didn't seem to dwindle with each new 3D movie released, of which there have been many based on your own references. Kind of hard to say that technology that's been around since the 80's didn't catch on - it certainly didn't die out!
cant wait for immense 3d gaming
@kish I wouldn't even imagine that the next XBOX/360 shipping without 3D support.
(Wii of course will be released in HD, they play it a few years behind)
@(Unverified) i hear ps3 will be getting 3d games this year.
Also I really can't wait for the day where I can add "3D compatibility" to my glasses or contacts when everyone is using the same tech. Standardize this stuff pronto!
Did and of you guys see Avatar in IMAX, that's the first movie that really makes me feel like 3D has a chance at home.
@EASYxTARGET:
Yeah, 3D has a place - but it's not ready yet, and Avatar proved it. I saw it in both 2D and 3D and it was much better in 2D. I saw it first in 3D and wasn't sure, but then I went back and saw it in 2D and decided it was good, though a "little" predictable.
Anyways back to 3D. There were many times during Avatar where there would be things such as a blade of grass or plants in the forefront where the 3D just made a mess. It was blurry and confusing to look at. A few shots were of a tight hallway or space where the sides just did not work at all and make it really confusing to understand what you were looking at. The focal point also got messed up many times. The eye wasn't sure where it was supposed to be looking.
These things can be worked around, and I think they did a good job with the 3D, but it proved it's still not ready. Once 3D becomes more main stream, we're going to get a bunch of crappy, rushed crappy crap shoved through the pipes and all those problems I mentioned are going to be magnified. They paid very special attention to the 3D for Avatar which is why it worked to the level it did, but with how fast they're going to try and shove crap through, it's going to make a mess.
@EASYxTARGET
I did see Avatar in ->IMAX
@EASYxTARGET
Funny thing is, you haven't seen anything yet until you've actually sat through an active system demo. I did last year at CES (and hope to again in a few days when I go back to CES). 3D in the theaters is CRAP compared to what these guys are working on. Trust me...it's SICK!!!!
@EASYxTARGET
99% of television and movies do not have the budget to produce Avatar-quality 3D, and therefore won't look as good as Avatar.
@(Unverified) If 3D catches on I'm sure it will become cheaper to produce, and I'm against everything switching to 3D, but like I said, I now see it as having a place in 3D. While watching the movie I honestly felt as if I were looking into another world and not just film, it really showed that 3D can have an advantage over 2D. Now with that said, I don't really wanna watch CNN in 3D :/
@erh You don't need Avatar's budget to make Avatar-quality 3D at all. Avatar had an enormous CGI budget to render huge amounts of completely synthetic scenery in 3D. 99% of television and movies need nothing more than stereoscopic cameras and recording equipment to get Avatar-quality 3D.
I just can't get passed the required glasses for this type of 3D to work, I've messed around with it in the past for gaming, and it was interesting, but I wouldn't want to do it all the time. I wrote more about it over at my blog if anybodies curious http://www.jeffsguidetocheaptv.com/general/samsung-and-jvc-pick-their-3d-tech/
Wearing shades in front of my TV at home = BS.
@EddieN
but wearing shades in front of screen at a theater isn't?
It's crazy that 3D film/video has made such a come back. It's a lousy gimmick that, while improved over how it was in the past in terms of being less headache inducing, and giving you color, is still just a gimmick. You've got flat things stacked one on top of each other. At some point everyone is going to realize that it's just kind of annoying.
@(Unverified)
Have you seen Avatar in 3D?
This tech is still in its infancy, and yeah, it wasn't perfect. But for a movie like Avatar I think it was an important part of the experience. I'll likely be seeing Avatar in 2D just to see how it compares, but I was blown away by Avatar 3D on IMAX.
I'd agree that most 3D movies to this point have been gimmicks - a generally terrible plot surrounding a bunch of effects purpose-built for a 3D experience. When done properly, though (like most of Avatar) it can make all the difference. In 2D, Avatar would likely be just another visually breathtaking, predictable action flick with some extra preachy bits thrown in for good measure. 3D brings you into that virtual world, though, and it's amazing.
My only issue was that in my peripheral vision, the screen was a bit blurred due to the glasses. The 3D effect was limited primarily to the center of my field of vision. That's an implementation thing, though, and may have been a result of my giant noggin.
Done right, 3D can be an integral part of the entertainment experience. It's all about how its implemented.
@F orrest No, I haven't seen Avatar, and am not likely too. Color me crazy, but the trailer looked god-awful. I haven't been caught up in the hype. The last 3D movie I saw was about 1/3 of Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs (the showing of which went crazy partway through, acting like a skipping DVD). Before that, Up, which I'm looking forward to seeing again... in 2D.
I'm tired of hearing about all this 3d hd... I mean really, who cares about 3d. I want to watch tv not be bombarded by it. Also I am not going to put on 3d glasses to watch it. 3d is a cool effect and not much more. I don't get why all these companies are focusing so much money on it. most homes don't have hdtv's yet, focus on making them better and less expensive so more people will buy them rather than making them more expensive to do something 90% of people will not use more than once or twice.
Hmmmm....I wonder if all of this is going to work with my Samsung HL56A650 DLP HDTV, which has supposedly had 3D support for years, and has a place to plug in active an LCD glasses controller? It would be interesting to fool around with if I don't need a new TV.
@edgore
The polarized version will not. The active shutter will work with your TV.
@edgore I suspect that it will work if you have nvidia 3d vision. :) It is a very good system for gaming and will soon support 3d blu ray. :)