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.
@billgrovegmailcom
Its actually more like $300-1000 for a typical family for glasses plus the replacement/repair costs when lil Jimmy sits on 2 pairs because they got left on the sofa.
@Pacey Heehee!!! Excellent point! That darn little Jimmy is ALWAYS costing extra money!
@billgrovegmailcom: Your current TV would not have the IR emitter needed to sync with the glasses, and could only display 30fps per eye anyway (which gives a really nasty flicker, and instant headaches).
The newer 3D-capable TVs have the IR emitter, and more importantly will accept a true 120Hz signal, allowing 60fps per eye (note that most current "120/240Hz" TVs still only accept 60Hz signals and just interpolate frames, which isn't good enough for 3D stereo).
G I M M I C K
3D - Not interested
3D that requires glasses - Really not interested
3D that requires battery-powered glasses - Get Bent!
I tried those 3D Glasses @ the Sonystyle in Aventura Mall, FL.
They are really cool and the 3D effect in astounding. I spent like 30 minutes watching trailers and that soccer match.
The only thing is that I wear prescription glasses because of a small degree of myopia, so I had to stack one glass on top of another. It looked good through, but is far from a comfortable option.
I wonder what they 're gonna do with people with really bad vision.
@dalmiroy2k Most glasses have adjustable nose pieces but i can see cases where glasses could be a problem.
Most of my friends have glasses and had no problem with the nivida shutter glasses though so it really comes down to the design and im sure there will be better designs for people that have glasses in the future.
@dalmiroy2k I just tried them too at the SonyStyle in South Coast Plaza. I was EXTREMELY impressed with them. I thought it as going to be just another gimmick, but the 3d was really good and the glasses were comfortable and very unintuitive. I thought it was more impressive and better than the theater.
People need to try the tech instead of just judging it without any first hand experience. I think a lot of you will change your opinion once you actually see a set in action.
Question to all you knowledgeable people out there: Why are these TVs don't use same technology as in movie theaters with cheap disposable polarized 3d glasses? They work great in the movie theater... Is there some sort of technological limitation like not enough brightness, etc.?
@Bratan
To quote myself from above:
"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."
@Bratan
That and the theaters either use two projectors to create the 3D image or a special projector with multiple lenses. TVs would need to have double the pixels they do now (I think) with each 'set of pixels' producing half of the image in order for polarized lenses to work.
@Pacey
... and people who wear glasses struggle wearing another set of 3D ones on top ... I wonder how the manufacturers will cover that problem; it looks as if most haven't even thought of it judging by the look of most glasses?
Seems like 3D is only for the good sighted!!!!
@(Unverified)
Don't worry. In 6-12 months, they'll have active shutter prescription glasses made by Tag Heuer that will set you back a modest $600.
At this point I'd '/sarcasim' but I may have just given Sony a new idea....
If you have never seen 3D on a TV then dont knock it. I went over to Best Buy a couple of days ago to check it out and what I saw was incredible 3D on a 50" TV. Looked just as good as movie theater 3D. Only reason I wouldn't buy one now is because lack of movies or channels that support it. As soon as ESPN starts broadcasting sports in 3D I will be the first in line.
I wonder how much more the cable companies are gonna charge us for the 3D tier packaging? I mean right now, its another $10 bucks for the HD package. I'm guessing at least $20 bucks for the 3D teir because of the 'new technology needed to broadcast in 3D'
I think a 100 hours is a long period, normally after watching you put the glasses back on their 'stand', and having a wireless headphone from sony I think the 'stand' for the glasses is also the charger.
Hi All
Sony and most other manufactures use active shutter glasses, which is superior to the passive systems (the "sun" glasses) and the old school colored glasses.
Active shutter glasses are active, ie. with electronics inside and battery powered. In case of Sonys glasses its not rechargeable batteries, but the flat lithium batteries.
The active glasses is expensive, and you can't mix manufactures.
If you wan't to learn more about 3D, please take a look at the videos released to YouTube from the Sony 3D Experience Tour. Quite long videos, but they go into the depth with 3D.
Video 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gbGIcqNbJk
Video 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhnSmPaxMD4
Video 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYCfQEKTRM8
Regards, Lars
I don't understand why people get excited about hating 3D either. It's COMPLETELY optional. It's not like if you don't want it the government will start fining you after a certain date right? If everybody wants to scream about how they're not going to buy it why aren't all the guys screaming about how they'll never use tampons? Why aren't the adults with no kids not screaming about how they would never ever buy a baby stroller for themselves?? Nobody is pushing this on anyone, they are merely offering it to those that are willing to pay for it.
If you're not planning on buying something, great don't buy it. Let that reflect in the sales numbers and we'll see what the future holds.
Just take it easy, everyone.
I honeslty can't wait for quality 3D TVs to be readily avaiable although I've always been most concerned about having to buy new batteries for these glasses. Really, they don't have rechargeable ones yet? And it shoud be models with replaceable batteries so you can swap batteries while one charges. I've always wanted the polarized type since weight is a huge factor for me for comfort's sake. If these shutter glasses are too heavy it'd be a dealbreaker definitely.
@Maxthedog the glasses are rechargeable and they charge very quickly at least my Nvidia ones do.
I love how everyone keeps claiming this is going to fail...
I have a 3D projector and my friends kept saying 3D was a gimmick a waste of time and a waste of money.
After a few hours of watching movies in 3D my friends stopped bitching and realized how amazing the tech is.
Some cool ideas were thrown around and we could see some really cool things.
For example today when you have 2 friends playing lets say halo 3 on one console the game splits the screen in half so each player has their own "play area"
Now with 3D displays and shutter glasses what we can do is this, since two images are rendered to create the 3D affect what we do is render each players "play area" fully across the screen. Now each players glasses will be synced only to see their "play area" and nothing more. Yes you would loose the 3D effect but now you don't need to split the screen to both play.
Now when we start getting into 240hz 3D tvs we can render 4 images for a 4 player match…
Wearing glasses is so primitive - surely Sony and the like should be leaning towards this:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/10/intel-shows-off-glasses-free-3d-demo-now-this-is-more-like-it/
@Pearl Jam: Problem is, glasses-free TV requires you to sit dead centre at a specific distance, or the effect breaks. Also, it halves your horizontal resolution, and plain 2D content is unwatchable. These problems won't be solved any time soon; they're inherent to the glasses-free method.
Shutter glasses are the most practical solution for the home, that's why TV vendors chose them.