Sony's active shutter glasses now on sale, $150 buys your eyes a third dimension
By Sean Hollister 
posted July 1st 2010 1:12AM
posted July 1st 2010 1:12AM
posted July 1st 2010 1:12AM
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 Nintendo can figure out how to squeeze 3d into a tiny screen with no glasses, why can't Sony (supposedly a technically superior company) figure out how to do it with a TV. Maybe it has something to do with all the money Nintendo has laying around to pour into R & D with those two money printing machine's they call the Wii and DS.
@Rudolphe22
you see, the 3D effect of the 3DS is will not function if you are not in the correct angle upon viewing the screen. apply that on your tv, then everyone in the room is gonna have to sit in a vertical line prior to the tv, which is sadly, not something everyone would like to do. but hey, this is new technology, let them improve it.
@Rudolphe22
The glasses-free technology only works well in small screens at the moment.
@Rudolphe22 Because Sony isn't doing it on a 3 inch screen that will be seen from straight ahead with a slider to adjust for depth being seen by one person and not a group. I'm typing this drunk and I realize that.
@RadioactiveQube Right. It's way too expensive an investment right now and not enough content providers are producing content to justify the expense to me. I'm going to give it at least 2 years before I jump in.
@DrTMAC True, but 3D has been around for a long time... my money would be in focusing on making this work on a larger scale and ditching glasses all together.
@Rudolphe22 They both are use different technology. Many people say it's uncomfortable/weird/annoying/lame/etc having to watch 3D movies with glasses. Imagine how many more complaints there would be if the consumer had to stay still and not move or else the eyes would have to re-adjust to the screen(nintendos technology).
Although Microsoft research on 3D is really interesting, at least what I read.
@RadioactiveQube This is so not true. There are many auto-stereoscopic displays out there that have multiple viewing angles. You do not have to sit in a line to view 3D without glasses. These displays will replace 3D that requires glasses. People are not going to go for dorky 3D glasses that cost $150 a pop. People who buy these Sony TVs will be expected to upgrade to new glasses-free sets within a couple of years. This technology is a total waste of money.
@okok only Apple Fanboys bought i Right, because Nintendo had nothing to do whatsoever in implementing it in their device.
Moron.
@the bandit
Or the TV will just be $600 more expensive....
The tech for glasses free 3D is not even close for consumer devices. Yes the tech exists to allow multiple viewing positions but these positions are still fixed. There is head tracking tech to adjust the effect as you move around but this is only available for 1 viewer. I hate the glasses especially as I would need to buy a load of them just in case the family come over although most of the time they would be sat gathering dust at $150 per pair.
I am not even very impressed by the 3D effect it is not true 3D as you can't look around scenery etc it just adds some depth of field..... I am not sure I will be impressed until a tie fighter appears from behind me to match the surround sound stage.
@coolblue2000
Edit..
By consumer devices I mean large screen TVs as more discrete displays would obviously not need to be viewed by more than on person.
@RadioactiveQube Unless those people are really fat they will have to sit in a row but the viewing angle for the Sony 3D tvs are 120 degrees!!
@coolblue2000
Exactly. The tech just isn't there to make for real 3D - much less to justify the high costs to buy in. The prices of these glasses is just nuts to me.
My eyes already see in 3D, thanks though.
@DTJ Yes but with these you'll be able to see in 3D when you're walking down the street as well.
@DTJ
Your eyes do not see in 3-D — they can only see in 2-D.
It's your brain that takes these two slightly different 2-D images and creates a virtual and stunningly real approximate 3-D perception that can be easily fooled.
Your eyes see in 2-D, your brain sees in 3-D.
My eyes say yes yes, but my wallet say no no.
@cdf74dc9 My eyes and my wallet and my headaches say no no no.
@cdf74dc9 i dont even have wallet to say no no.
@cdf74dc9
My eyes say yes but my prescription specs say "not likely".
@simbr
OK, the sony site does say "designed to fit over prescription eyewear." but they don't look like a good fit from here.
My brother sells them at Best Buy.
Let me know, I can hook you up!
Lol
@Av4ry Are you also my long lost uncle stranded in Africa who needs my bank account information to make it back home?
@blokeyhighlander Or the daughter of a rich middle eastern guy who died and she is in some sort of trouble and needs my help to get $30,000,000 transfered to my bank account so she can continue studying and or marry me?
Oh the email also said i woulg get half of the 30 mil
Because Sony isn't doing it on a 3 inch screen that will be seen from straight ahead with a slider to adjust for depth being seen by one person and not a group. I'm typing this drunk and I realize that.
I don't think 3D will take off until it requires no glasses. Stores can't even maintain demos because by the end of the day, the glasses are wrecked.
This is just a desperate measure by TV companies to bring back the profits of TVs. HDTVs have almost reached commodity prices with razor thin margins. Not like the early days when HDTV had a 30+% profit margin.
All TV manufacturers can do to bring back the profit margin is either add additional features (Internet connectivity, better GUIs, etc.), a bump up in the resolution standard for HDTV, or things like 3D.
I have a feeling that 3D Movies (outside of the theater) and Gaming are in for a long uphill battle.The technology is great, but most people JUST bought new HDTVs, most of which are not 3D capable. Add in the $150 glasses and it simply becomes too expensive.
For me, I would need a new TV ($2,500) and 5 pairs of 3D glasses for each member of my family ($750) and possibly though not likely a new blu-ray player ($200) and IR sensor ($50) bringing my grand total to $3,500. Its simply not worth it for what you get.
We already live in the "HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE"
How are these TV's '3D' if they're not even included a RF transmitter? That leaves the refresh rate as pretty much the only part of the checklist, but pretty much every television has refresh rates of 240 and up nowadays, so what the hell?
I don't see the point in buying a 3k $ TV and 1k $ Accessories without an apple logo..:P..Future is looking bleak and expensive
Ugh.
Even though the end of the post is sarcastic, I still agree with it. Yes the future is grand and so is the capitalism that will make this technology affordable to everyone by next year. Wise up.
Sony isn't known for being inexpensive.
I think I'll wait for the dust to settle before paying almost as much as I did for prescription glasses and frame as I do for special glasses to watch a 3D TV.
I see no need in paying the premium price to be a 3D early adopter.
I'm not saying it isn't cool. What I am saying is, frankly, updating everything necessary to enjoy 3D will cost too fucking much.
When I go to the movies, those "real3D" glasses are passive... why can't anyone develop that for the home? Is it because those passive glasses are cheap and easy to build by someone else, thus Sony, Samsung et al can't charge me $150 per glasses?
@xtasi
No, It is because the cheap passive glasses are cheap and throwaway enough for cinemas to implement the tech. The active glasses are supposed to be better and I think allow the display to be cheaper. (Obviously it is better for cinemas to pay more for the screen tech and less for the glasses).
@coolblue2000 I haven't yet seen the consumer 3D tvs in person. However, I've seen several movies at theaters and they look pretty good to me. Any insight into how much more expensive it is for the screen to use passive glasses?
@xtasi
RealD relies on circular polarization which would be prohibitively expensive, if not impossible to achieve with an emissive display. It is much easier and cheaper to implement by projecting onto a screen, which is why theaters use it.
The future isn't grand the future cost a couple grands
Waiting for $20 Chinese knockoffs on eBay.
"Isn't the future grand?"
Yeah, a few grands maybe.
@Mecha2142 *grand. Ick.
So basically the glasses cost $200, because you can't use them without the IR emitter.
That's exactly how much nVidia 3D vision costs and you get the same thing - glasses and IR emitter. I'd honestly rather get these Sony ones though, they look nicer and I like the Sony brand better. Anyone know if they will work with a PC and a 120Hz monitor?
@Yankee No 3G needs to be 240hz
@way34 That went right over my head.
@Yankee Not Unless the IR transmitter has a USB connector and some drivers which happen to work just like NVs.
Shutter is crap. Wake me when they finally drop that nonsense and move onto polarization displays (2 years minimum) and most importantly: there is actually 3D content widely available (at least 5 years).
Until then, 3D is what HD was some 7 or 8 years ago: marketing fluff.
The article mentioned IR for the glasses. So do you need a separate IR for each set of glasses? So 4 people need 4 glasses and 4 IR?
@skuDZ we've had these on sale at best buy for a week already. You only need 1 or emitter per tv, at $50 since Sonys aren't overpriced already. Just a heads up the pictures on the hx series sonys aren't that great and suck on their LED's all together. Go buy a samsung or panasonic 3d tv. Pictures on both are better
haha what a joke
I don't mind wearing these glasses. The 3D effect looks awesome on 50 in screens. $150 each sucks, $50 would be reasonable. Wearing the glasses is part of the experience, a kind of reminder that you're in virtual reality.