Slashdot Mirror
Sony To Launch 3D TVs By Late 2010
eldavojohn writes "The Financial Times is reporting that Sony is announcing 3D TVs for late 2010 at the IFA technology trade show in Berlin. It's another glasses-based technology with "active shutter" being employed (the same stuff teased at CES as well as employed on NVIDIA's glasses). Expect to see 3D Bravia television sets, Vaio laptops, PS3s and Blu-ray disc players compatible with this technology."
3D porn, anyone ?
I saw a couple of 3D tvs shown at a tradeshow I went to about a month ago. There were two different types, one I looked at closely had a different type of glass on the front which made the image behind 3D. The other by sony didnt have it as far as I could see and looked just like a normal TV.
Sucks to be me though, I've got a dominate eye so I can't see the 3D stuff. Just looks like an out of tune tv. Guess i've got that to look forward to when they go mainstream :P
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
Unless I can move my head to look around something, it's not 3D. If they want to call it 'stereo' TV, that's fine, but it's not 3D.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
And, of course, there is a industry-wide, agreed upon standard for the 3D encoding and formats, right? Right??
not sure what dimension you guys are living in but my tv has both width, height, AND depth. Already 3d.
> It's another glasses-based technology with "active shutter" being employed.
Great, but I wonder if these companies ever think about people with eyesight problems (yes, talking about myself) who can't properly eperience glass-based 3D movies.
... I'm not much interested in 3D until the glasses ARE the display, to be honest. Should be great if you're doing 3D design though.
I refuse sitting in my living room wearing those nasty 3D-glasses. I'll wait untill Philips opens up its WOWvx department again. I've seen this live and my initial reaction was, well, WOW!
Hum, where did I put my pedant hat... hum not here, not here... ah there we go. Hum hum
That's stereoscopic television, not 3d TV. I personally don't enjoy that much stereoscopic images, they don't look really believable to me. Stereoscopy is only one way we build a 3d model of our environment, the parallax created by our recent movements creates an accurate map too. Sure if you lose an eye, you'll have much poorer depth perception, but you won't lose it all. If you cover one eye, the world outside doesn't start looking like a TV image immediately... if you stay still for a long time it will, because you forget the parallax information you gathered.
Look at the wii headtracking videos on youtube... even though you're looking at a video of a guy simulating 3d on a video screen, it'll look 3d.
A real 3d TV would be holographic... it's waaay more complicated to make than movies this way. Rendering 3d animation in holographic format is doable but would require much more memory and rendering capabilities on the playback machine. The device is also much more complicated to build, but with 3 colored laser and a dlp system fine enough to change the phase of each pixel, it's doable.
To the point... where's my holographic tv!!
\u262D = \u5350
There was another /. comment regarding Sky doing this and attempting to lock you in to fake high definition 3D TV sets you can buy for a few thousand next year.
3D TV of the future is Hologram's The idea's are there, but you cannot do it right now and it certainly is not profitable. These ideas' have been floating around since the 1870's with stereo vision cards and glasses/lenses/photographs/viewers
3D is not new and is an alterted perception. Maybe dropping a few LSD tablets would be acceptable to be 3D. Thankfully I to see things without distortion :)
All cows eat grass!
The Sony 3D TV will only play back Beta tapes and DRM-ed content off Memory Sticks(TM), and it will install a rootkit on every device in your house before committing seppuku.
http://www.iz3d.com/ is glasses-based, but it's polarized light instead of shutters. I think motion sickness is a bigger risk with shuttered glasses. Polarized light looks better, feels better, and costs $300.
I want one of these :)
What I don't understand is why we are not seeing cheap 3d for projectors using polarized glasses. It would take less than $20 worth of parts to take a standard projector and make it a 3d projector. Just replace the spinning color wheel on the projector with one that has the same colors twice with different polarizers on each side.
This cheapo solution of course lowers the luminance and requires either a slower color wheel or twice the frame rate on the DLP. for a little more money you could even recapture the lost luminance, but it would be simpler to use a brighter bulb. Neither of those are serious issues because projector luminance has more than doubled for the same price in the last few years, and so have color wheel speeds, so it's a tiny degredadation to use 3-d mode. Moreover it's demostrably tolerable to viewers since there are people who sell retrofits for projectors (that go over the front of the lens) that do exactly that. But the retrofit approach is expensive compared to just changing out the color wheel.
The question then is how do you drive it but that's all a software issue.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Unless I can move my head to look around something, it's not 3D. If they want to call it 'stereo' TV, that's fine, but it's not 3D.
Well even a hologram goes away when you move past the film. What you mean is you want the image to change depending on your position in the room up to a point (where you are behind the hologram).
And indeed some TVs can do this. the ones with linticular lenses in principle can offer different views to different parts of the room. the stero headsets however don't.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
This tech will fail because simply sending two image streams isn't good enough -- it encodes assumptions about eye spacing, viewing distance and angle that are too restrictive. People aren't going to jump for a system that shows you a distorted and headache-inducing scene if you aren't sitting precisely in front of the center of the screen.
I've tried out a more sophisticated system that generates five points of view (from a 3D model) and fans them out with optics that don't require glasses. This greatly reduces the viewing-angle problem -- but it STILL sucks, because shifting between discrete views as you move your head is too disorienting, and because with current tech generating five views reduces your resolution by a factor of 5.
Real 3D won't dominate until it's being fed to a head-mounted display (or the equivalent), and/or we're shipping true 3D data (not just two fixed viewpoints).
Will we ever have that trope of nearly every near-future sci-fi story - the true volumetric display with an image that appears in midair like a living statue made out light, no eyeglasses, panes of glass, contact lenses, volatile gases, or brain implants required? Is there anything in the labs today that make this a true definitely-maybe-keep-your-hopes-up-sure-to-have-it-twenty-years-from-now technology, like fusion reactors?
Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope!
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
but until they create a COMFORTABLE set of glasses that can rest on my face, there's no fricken way I'm buying into any of it!
DLP has had 3d for a long time. I think my TV has it. This is an interesting trick. Other than that, no one cares.
And who exactly is going to be creating programming to watch on these so-called 3DTV's? Anyone? Bueller? Will I be able to watch Mythbusters in 3D this fall? Next fall? Fall of 2020 even?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
http://www.dlp.com/hdtv/3-d_dlp_hdtv.aspx
I hope this isn't another proprietary thing where you have to have all Sony equipment.
Is it just me, or do you hate it when people say "Is it just me..."?
We finally get displays which have no flicker whatsoever, and now these people want to put it back in. Do not want.
Hollywood still thinks 24 FPS is good enough. Many home screens are now capable of delivering much better frame rates. The day is close when "direct to disk" will be better than theater quality. Video games may get there first.
Seriously, am I the only one who read the article and thought... oh nice, at last a major TV innovatio, it is really going to change... thinking of the 3D TV in the movie paycheck.... then, when they realized it was another 3D glasses version, yawned... lemme guess, they're going to commercialize it, make it terribly expensive, no one will buy them... and they'll wonder why so they'll blame the economy or voodoo forces if need be.
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that
Casablanca ... now in color, 3D, and animated!
Judgment at Nurenberg -- with a whole new laughtrack!
Tron: Nearly as 3D as before!
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
describe color to a blind person, or sound to someone born deaf. How can you describe depth to someone who can't see it ?
I guess they're not marketing to those of us who just dislike the idea of bloody stupid glasses becoming a mainstream item. It's a disturbing trend.
Who died and made you king? I mean, who became ill and made you president?
Anyway, unlike Cuba we have freedom of speech so here's a big fat fuck you.
Perhaps if you logged in you could use the option to hide sigs rather than giving orders you can't enforce.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
That was his excuse for not buying a TV for his wife back in the '50s. He was waiting for 3D TV. Of course, he's dead now, and that should be a lesson to tech buyers who put off their purchases thinking it will be cheaper and better next year. OK, so maybe the days of "better" are over, but it will almost definitely be cheaper.
This was actually demoed at BlizzCon, except I don't think the TV set was a Sony model. I could be wrong. I do recall that they were using nVidia hardware (big surprise) to drive this thing. A friend was walking with me and glanced over to the booth and made a disparaging comment about how crappy the display was because it was so blurry...
What amazed me was the size of the display. Up until recently, I'd only seen this stuff demoed with desktop-sized LCD flat panel monitors; this display appeared to be living-room sized, by my guesstimate 34" diagonal or larger.
Since nVidia was one of the big sponsors, I think they were the ones pushing this tech, followed perhaps by the display manufacturer. Who knows, maybe this stuff is finally gaining some traction and will go mainstream?
...It'll only come with one authorized set of 3D glasses. Just like they do with console controllers, you'll have to buy more and the only authorized ones will come from Sony (you won't be able to use any ol' 3D glasses - remember these use super special "shutter" technology). And they won't be cheap either.
I'm astonished at the amount of uninformed speculation about acehole's "dominant eye" comment (and no, I am not new here). The condition is called amblyopia, and it affects a small percentage of the population, myself included. My left eye is functionally normal, but for some reason the information reaching my brain comes overwhelmingly from my right eye. In my case, the problem has moderated as I have aged, but it caused a lot of trouble when I was young - I had to wear a patch over my dominant eye in elementary school. (Which didn't work, but was, unsurprisingly, fertile ground for taunts and insults.)
Why the heck did they go with the lCD glasses technology? its the worst of the lot both in terms of cost and performance.
I experimented extensively with this stuff with nvidia's first-time-round LCD shutter glasses 8(?) years ago.
It suffers badly with cross-eye bleedover (as LCD panels even when black still let quite a lot of light through) and the 60hz alternating blinking in front of each eye gives most people killer migraine after about 15 minutes.
Why cant they go with the much better idea of alternately polarized pixels on the display itself? (similar to IMAX-style 3D). It gives much better results, much less eye strain (as theres no flickering), and would only require cheap passive glasses.
I saw this in the Urbis (Videogame Nation event) with the Oliver Twins, who created Dizzy, back in June. They are making Invincible Tiger for the Xbox 360 and PS3. It's the first game to be digitally 3D (using the 3D TV's). It's quite impressive!
I doubt this will be mainstream when it comes out. This sounds more akin to early TV that was broadcast over AM waves back in the 1930s. Back then, the entire industry was experimental and viewers were hobbyists. The broadcast technology changed every year. I would expect 3D-TV's technology to evolve for a decade or two before it's ready for mass-market standards.
No, I will not work for your startup
Wow, AC on Slashdot is a big step down from dictator. Fidel must not be holding up too well in retirement.