CableLabs starts testing 3D, determines existing set-tops are compatible
By Ben Drawbaugh 
posted January 19th 2010 6:32PM
posted January 19th 2010 6:32PM
posted January 19th 2010 6:32PM
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.
If this is just over HDMI 1.3, would it be possible to just watch it in split screen format on a current HDTV, I have no problem doing the cross-eyed 3D viewing method, though I haven't ever tried it for long periods of time. Anyone know?
@shorties
yes you can. I don't know how long you can keep being cross eyed though. I know I hurt my eyes after about a minute of doing so.
PS: with the side-by-side, you'll see the image to be "tall" (imagine the image squished horizontally)
Good to hear that. The less hardware that has to change, the better.
I don't think I can handle all three dimensions of Joshua Hunkowlsky - Lord Jesus!
Oh lord. Last thing I want to do when watching tv is having to don those damn glasses every single time.
"Ooh I can't wait to see Jimmy Fallon in 3D" , Yawn, seriously who gives a shit about 3D. Ooh maybe you will get Avatar in 3D (still who cares). I've said this on numerous posts and 3D is a fad, was a fad and will remain an 80's fad.
This stupid TV industry should concentrate on buying HD cameras for it's show and produce1080p content for our current 1080p compatible tv's today.
What a waste of time and money his is.
...and yes I can see the massive difference in 1080i (interlaced) thats is still not progressive scan 1080p
When, when we will see it, years after we all went out to buy a 1080p TV.
@(Unverified) No one really gave a shit about HD when it first came out either. A lot of people still don't. 3D is just another HD format, don't get your panties in a knot about it.
I love it whenever there is some news about 3D, someone always has to complain about wearing glasses or that it gives them headaches or that it's a fad. These comments are getting old.
Either don't watch the 3D or wait until the sets come out without the need for glasses.
With Avatar getting $1.6 billion worldwide box office so far ... obviously some people like 3D ... because it can't be due to the story. I admit that I was more impressed with the CG than I was with the 3D and I don't plan on buying a 3DTV anytime soon and if I do ... it'll be because of games. I still remember being impressed by the 3D games from the Sega Master System.
I hope they stop messing around with 3D and approve those cablecard PC tuners that were submitted...
Does that mean that if we want to watch it in 2D, we will get half the horizontal resolution? Unacceptable.
@kcmurphy88
I agree! I'm really worried that 3D gimmicks and sloppy stories will be the result of this 3D hype. Look at a Voyage to the Center of The Earth for example. Take away the 3D crap and you're left with...a crap movie.
@kcmurphy88
No, the existing HD stream remains the same, this is a new stream -- for now. Eventually there might be a day when a full 1080p60 3D signal is sent to your house and presented in the best quality your TV can handle.
"run away with the new technology " ...how is 3D new technology?
@kx152rider
This is not your parents 3D, this is new technology. Believe me, if it wasn't you wouldn't see all these 3D topics on Engadget.
Just watch when cable providers try to slap an extra $10 for this crap. Same bandwidth, lower resolution but $10 more because its 3D.
Cue the idiotic
- "Glasses are stupid"/"Give me 3D without glasses" whiners
- "3D is just a fad" whiners
- "I hate 3D" whiners
You might as well cue up the sound of a crying baby whenever there's an article about 3D.
no it's not new technology. Loewe, Saba, Sansui, Hughes all came out with 3D with LCD shutter glasses way back when in the early 80's. (at 30 fps and at 50 fps per eye) and Sega came out with shutter glasses system too (at 15 fps per eye)
@David Susilo
Oh so 15 fps at 480 is the same as 24 at 1080? Give me a break. Why do you even read this site?
@BenD
the problem is flicker, not resolution. Human eyes require AT LEAST 60 fps per eye to tolerate flicker and at 72 fps per eye to not see flicker.
Give ME a break.
@David Susilo
EXACTLY. Which is why Panasonic will display it at 192hz and Sony is using 480hz. Yeah, they could do that in the 80's.
@BenD
not the broadcast system we're discussing here. The frames being sent is still 60 fps each eye. Did you even go to CES and talked to learn about this technology?
no new cable box, no extra bandwidth, ie still doing it at 60 fps per eye (which in Europe translates to 50 fps per eye - ie the same technology since the '80s), having a display that can display faster framerate means nothing if the input is only still at 60 fps per eye (in NA) and 50 fps per eye (in EU, AU)
@David Susilo
To my knowledge no one in the world has seen this technology at home (not in the industry or a beta tester anyways). Sure it is only 960x1080 @ 30 frames per second per eye (or 640x720 @ 60), but that doesn't mean it is 480 @ 15 like the sega master system of the 80's. Not to mention TVs before these new ones -- that are even out yet -- didn't even support shutter glasses. Now if you are arguing this was possible for a few years with Samsung and Mitsubishi DLPs, then fine. But with only the one dying display technology supporting it, no content owners were willing to make the investment.
And most TV manufactures will show the content a higher frame rate to even further reduce any flickering problems.