Sony's 3D glasses rated at 55 Alice in Wonderland viewings per charge
By Tim Stevens 
posted March 24th 2010 9:27AM
posted March 24th 2010 9:27AM
posted March 24th 2010 9:27AM
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.
this is such a bad idea comn
@gustav213
It's backed heavily by Rupert Murdoch, he has enough sway to get the media to continue telling you otherwise. I can honestly see 3D crashing and burning, at least until glasses-free, holographic displays come out.
@gustav213 Can I order it with prescription? I don't wear contacts and I hate wearing glasses on glasses
@tommy2468 I know I was just talking about to my coworker, and what if you have friends over, you haveto buy extra glasses, and what about a 10 year old kind running around with 150 dollar glasses.
@TC Yes, and we all now how "informed" people are where Rupert Murdoch is involved....
@TC Yes, and we all know how "informed" people are where Rupert Murdoch is involved....
@gustav213 Yes because the cost of First generation tech NEVER comes down in price....
In about a year the prices on these glasses will fall.
Why can't they make tvs use the same glasses the movies use?
@cdreamworld movies use either polarization or shutter glasses. shutter glasses are the same technolog< that most 3dtvs will use, because you don't need to modify the tv hardware itself it just needs to be compatible with 120Hz refresh rate. polarization would also be possible for tvs but it would require much more expensive tv sets. in the future polarization may become cheaper and could become the dominant technology but who knows.
@cdreamworld i think it has to do with tv/monitor screens
@cdreamworld There's a JVC TV that Virgin Media use in their shops to showcase 3DTV that uses polarisation - but apparently it costs in the region of £8000. I tried it and it worked quite nicely though.
@Xstream so what you are saying is the TV and glasses we buy today could be obsolete in a year. Woohooo - where can I get on this bandwagon?
@cdreamworld It all depends on which movietheater you go, some use polarised glasses, and some use shutterglass (like these from sony).
I guess the biggest problem with polarised glasses for tv's is you cannot turn the option off for relaxed 2d viewing.. watching a tv which is suitable for polarised glasses without the glasses and only 2d content isn't a pleasant experience when watching for a long time.
@cdreamworld Polarized 3D actually requires the movies theaters have have 2 projectors simultaneously projecting 2 different images. Basically, one of the images sends the light horizontally and one sends it vertically. The polarized lens then block out the opposite orientation. I would imagine it's extremely hard to make a tv that sends 2 signals at separate angles, even though it can be easily achieved by projectors.
wait....I will admit that I didn't read up on this....
but this shit uses BATTERIES!?!?!
WTF man??
yea so if this 3D tech that coming to homes requires all this, I'm DAMN sure to jump on board anytime soon....I was thinking about doin it next year some time but not now, $100+ for glasses is bad enough but I figured I could find some of those on ebay for under $40 by next fall.... but they use batteries? smh...
Call me when the 3D tech that they use in theaters gets implemented in home....I already have TONS of those glasses laying around...
@Chris DPSN AggieCEO XBLThe Aggi:
of course it uses batteries, shutter glasses work by switching one of the eyes to black through a lcd layer embedded in the glas
@Chris DPSN AggieCEO XBLThe Aggi
They're not just there to make you look cool
@Chris DPSN AggieCEO XBLThe Aggi
yeah man. i didnt even know these 3d stuffs use batteries. epic fail. sux to be in the middle of a movie and the power dies.
@dark star so then you pause the movie and get new batteries, these are for TV not for movie theater
@Jimbojones
Unless the batteries aren't 'hot swappable' like so many things are becoming today. It's not like these things are going to run on 3x AAA's or something
@Jimbojones
Really? I can just pause the movie and go searching for some batteries? Well, since you put it like that then it's all OK.
And I thought the old green and red paper glasses were dumb. Fifty years later and we come up with an idea that is an even worse implementation.
@Jimbojones
hit pause and then replace the batteries. why didnt i think of that?
how about hit pause and then wait 30mins for the glasses to charge up if the batteries arent swappable?
if you ask me, sounds like a lot of BS! first we have to upgrade the tv. now we gotta get expensive glasses. and then invest in some nice batteries. i think im gonna pass this round and wait for the holodeck.
@dark star Or you just plug in the mini USB cable and let them charge while you watch if your battery is low....
They can't use polarized passive glasses because at the theater, they are using two projectors. An LCD doing something similar would have to have double the usual number of pixels, with each pixel twice as bright as usual, and with each having a tiny polarizing filter on it.
Of course, you could just have a red/green anaglyph mode for 3d programming without any fancy tech in the LCD, just electronics and maybe a SHARC to take the two images and recolor them so that they look natural through the glasses. That way, you wouldn't have a 2000 dollar set and 900 dollars worth of glasses.
This push for 3D is ridiculous. Now most people can tack on $300 or more to the price of their next TV due to all the stupid battery powered glasses they're going to need to have. And extra fun for people with kids when those glasses are summarily destroyed.
@Vidikron they can just use the tv in 2d mode or just buy a 2d tv if they want to save money where is the problem?
Sure, you can just opt to do without, but as soon as you decide you want to see even the occasional show in 3D you need to spring for the glasses for yourself and the rest of your family.
@Vidikron As kids, I remember my brother and my sister broke the TV remote because they couldn't share.
I can't imagine the carnage when 3 kids try to share only two pairs of these glasses. For 100 bucks a pop, I don't see how an average family of five is going to get glasses for everyone.
something tells me 3D isn't going to have a big impact in the home until homes can use theatre-sized screens.
Isn't that the whole awesomeness of 3D? the image coming at you is huge and overwhelming, but even on an 80inch screen, it won't have the same effect.
@bohoy2k
I would like to see a LCD projector come out with a polarizer to allow me to use my current one and the new one just like the IMAX does 3D. I may only get 30Hz (the hardware would switch signals over HDMI between the two overlapping projectors), but it would be ok.
And if they could come up with a way to use software to 'fake' 3D in movies, that would be cool.
But, the reason this will take off is the PS4. 3D (or will they call it 4D) gaming will be what drives this.
@bohoy2k
You can already get 120+ inch screens for home use now. If you're only sitting 10-15 feet from the screen, its definitely "theater sized", and yes you need to be that far from the screen for something that big.
@bohoy2k "Isn't that the whole awesomeness of 3D? the image coming at you is huge and overwhelming, but even on an 80inch screen, it won't have the same effect."
I think with non-gimmicky 3D, like Avatar, or with sports, the awesomeness has nothing to do with things coming out at you. It's just seeing things as if they are sitting in 3D space rather than a flat image. That's what I liked about the way Avatar was done... nothing came out at me, nothing was purposely done 3D like that, it was just 3 dimensional which added a layer of realism.
There is no way I would pay that much for glasses. I just got a 52 incher a little over a year ago, and it will be fine for me until 3D is all over. HD came out in 1999 right? but it's just now to the point of being able to afford the big HD sets and have content available everywhere in HD (and still not 1080P from cable/satellite). I give it 5 years until there is enough 3D content to justify it, and then costs will be way down. The people with money to blow can get it right now, just like they did with their 60 inch rear projection HDTVs in 2001.
@McHoffa
"I think with non-gimmicky 3D, like Avatar, or with sports, the awesomeness has nothing to do with things coming out at you."
I really dispute that the 3D in Avatar was "non-gimmicky". This is the film that has put me off 3D for life and demonstrated how utterly pointless 3D actually is. The whole effect feels so completely fake and it adds absolutely nothing to the cinematic experience. In this respect I agree with bohoy2k - you need a big screen that fills your vision before any sort of fake 3D will begin to seem "right". Frankly, this is just implausible. I realise that the TV industry continues to march on with stupidly large televisions but until our homes become large enough for them to accommodate such displays, or we feel happy to have our living rooms dominated by such objects, I don't see standard size of televisions in homes being much more than 40".
$120 per set of glasses? Good luck making revenue with this one Sony.
I think I will sit out this wave of the '3D TV revolution'.
I love how everyone is slamming this idea, yet as soon as one of your friends gets a 3D tv and some decent content, the "bug" will spread like everything else. I'm not quite due for another TV yet (60" Sony LCOS), but will have the "Bug" probably next year and it will be one of the new 3D tvs. The only thing I don't like about my current tv is that I have to get a new bulb every couple of years (wish it was led lit) and I could go for one of the 70"s coming out.
@jonyah
Ive seen movies in 3D at the theater and it doesn't make me want to run out and buy a 3D set for my home, why would my friend having one be any different?
@jonyah
Agreed - kind of like half the people I know shelled out for a 1080p TV when they don't even have a Blue-Ray player at home.
Or people who insist on buying 32-inch TVs that are 1080P even if they do have a Blue-Ray player ... like anyone can tell the difference at that size.
3D TV will do fine. People don't know what they need, but they do know they want something "better" ...
@FirAwesome: Blu-ray.
@jonyah
"I love how everyone is slamming this idea, yet as soon as one of your friends gets a 3D tv and some decent content, the "bug" will spread like everything else."
...or we'll just laugh at them for being such a complete muppet. Under no circumstances will I ever voluntarily sit around watching 3D content in silly glasses. Since 3D in the cinemas is so unimpressive I honestly don't see myself watching 3D content, if I can avoid it, even if the glasses are not required.
@FirAwesome The best reason for a 1080p 32 inch TV is to have it double as a computer monitor.
How do shutter glasses sync with the TV's refresh rate?
@morphinapg I believe the TV has some IR lights that the glasses pick up on to sync automatically.
@Weber 09 so even if a TV has 120hz, it doesn't mean it can be used for 3d? I know shutter glasses have been used with computer monitors >100Hz for several years.
@morphinapg
They work with the 3D Bluray player or a PS3.
Obviously not all programming will or should be 3D. So the life of the batteries isn't quite 'troubling'.
3D home viewing elicits similar reactions as the health care bill. You would think 3D tech in the living room will kill your family and lead to Armageddon.
3D is, believe it or not, (dissimilar from heath-care) O P T I O N A L. Also, you aren't going to watch all your TV and/or Blu-Rays in 3D. There is only a couple of stations that will broadcast in 3D. Movies may be more prevalent, but still. It is going to be appointment/event-type TV. You are not going to have to have 3D taped to your head. You will watch(if you choose to invest) a few hours a week. That is about it for the next few years. Even with gaming, there isn't too much on the horizon.
People act like someone is gonna come to your house and put a gun to your head and make you buy a new 3DTV and put on horrible(shiver) 3D glasses.
I refuse to be sucked into this 3D hype machine. I'll probably get a nice 120Hz LED Backlit LCD, or a Plasma when I get an HD TV. But I'll be damned if I'm going to get a 3D one. Seriously, fuck this shit.
Wait, 35 hours per week??? I couldn't care less about 3D television, but I'm glad I read this article just for that number. That is insane! Add that to the number of hours on the Internet and you hardly have time to pull into the McDonald's drive-thru for your three squares a day (unless you have a tv in your SUV, of course). That is just plain sad.
We've spent a lot of time talking about 3D in my office since we're custom installers for home automation and theaters, etc. We can see the tech taking off in the dedicated theaters that some of our clients have, but we just can't see it taking off with every TV in the home yet.
When you think about how you watch a football game from the stands, the image is 3D but the experience feels like 2D. That's why most of the cameras the film the gameplay are up high (as well as not taking up valuable seating space). Sure they have on field cameras and the behind the QB cam, etc, but honestly you are going to get tired real quick of having the damn football thrown in your face over and over on every pass if they moved the main cameras to the field.
The problem with polarized lenses vs active shutter can be seen at the theaters now, especially in the IMAX. Tilt your head when you're watching a movie and the 3D image falls apart. Granted in the theater, you sit upright you your head vertical at all times, but when we watch TV at home, we lay on the sofa, we lean on our significant others, we sit almost every way BUT vertical.
3D in the home is just another way for TV manufactures to push out more sets. A large number of people now have HDTV sets and wouldn't but new TVs until the set they have dies. 3D sets and great marketing gets people to buy more TVs, whether they need them or not.
@Pacey
I have a 140" screen and I wouldn't even think of considering 3D. More tech, more $$$, and little upside. (I made a similar comment about 3D being flat on wide shots a couple days ago.) Right on point there.
Two different types of 3D, guys. THESE glasses will allow you to use your CURRENT TV for 3D! No buying a new one! The polarized lenses that you use in the theater read two different images on the screen at the same time. And in reference to the above comment, no, it's not two projectors anymore, just one with a special ($50,000) lens. So, you can say that you won't jump on 3D, but $150 for a pair of glasses is a LOT better than $3000 for a new 3D TV that you STILL requires you to wear glasses!