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."

26 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. porn by BisexualPuppy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    3D porn, anyone ?

    1. Re:porn by Shikaku · · Score: 3, Funny

      driving force behind the growth of the technology.

      Freud: "Too easy"

    2. Re:porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Me to Freud: "Just like your wife."

    3. Re:porn by hal2814 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I didn't know Disney was in the porn business...

  2. It's not 3D by Omnifarious · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:It's not 3D by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      The 3D on this TV is so good that not only will the money shot make you duck, it'll give you an STD too.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:It's not 3D by Anenome · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What you want is Johnny Lee-style head-tracking. Watch this and be amazed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw

      --
      "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
  3. Re:Hrmm by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

    Um, almost all of the population has a "dominant eye" with a very small fraction having no ocular dominance at all. I haven't had the chance to demo any of these technologies but if you're asserting that ocular dominance renders them useless then I think Sony's market is drastically small. I'm not an optometrist but are you saying you experience ocular dominance far more than the average person? To a debilitating extent?

    --
    My work here is dung.
  4. Yay! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 3, Funny

    And, of course, there is a industry-wide, agreed upon standard for the 3D encoding and formats, right? Right??

    1. Re:Yay! by clone53421 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      holographic 3D that you can move around and choose your own perspective.

      Producers would probably hate that. They're trying to perfect the angle of the shot, but only one person can actually see it from that angle because you have to be in the exact middle of the viewing area in order to see it. Plus, any sort of distance shot would be un-viewable from anywhere significantly off-center because the target of the scene would be out of the picture at that angle. They'd have to move it into the foreground, spoiling the distance effect.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  5. My TV is already 3d.... by electrosoccertux · · Score: 5, Funny

    not sure what dimension you guys are living in but my tv has both width, height, AND depth. Already 3d.

    1. Re:My TV is already 3d.... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've been finding that TV has less and less depth for some time now...

  6. Glasses? Nah... by Arrawa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!

  7. Re:Hrmm by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

    There's different degrees of dominance. He's probably got an extreme case where the other eye is mostly disregarded by the brain, possibly because it's defective. The eye, I mean.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  8. details that were omitted by jjeffries · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  9. Projectors? by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Projectors? by Snowspinner · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because you need a screen that will reflect the light back in a polarized fashion. In film terms, you're talking about a screen with silver crystals in it for reflectivity. But those screens are enormously fragile - which is part of why 3-D keeps flopping over in theaters - if one person throws their drink at the screen, or even touches it, the screen is wrecked for good and needs to be replaced.

      That's not technology suitable for home usage. Which is why home systems have always been based on field sequential systems of 3-D.

    2. Re:Projectors? by TexVex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I personally can't stand shutter glasses. My vision is very sensitive to flicker. It's not a matter of refresh rate but one of how much time is spent in blackness between frames; 3D necessitates a relatively long blanking of each eye.

      Theater screens using circular polarization work extremely well. The glasses are super cheap and do not require electronics. Without needing to black out the image to each eye for half of each frame, my personal flicker issues are avoided. The circular polarization allows the viewer to tilt his head off horizontal and not mess up the 3D effect. It seems to me that circular polarization is a clear winner over shutter glasses. What is the potential of circularly polarized 3D LCD displays?

      Also, what about DLP? I have great love for my DLP TV, and would be very much interested in a 3D DLP display. Does the screen screw up polarization there as well, and would one that could preserve the polarization suffer from the fragility you speak of?

      --
      Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
  10. Actually it can be by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  11. Re:Hrmm by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Informative

    My ex-wife has strabismus, which is probably what the GP was referring to. She couldn't see 3D either.

  12. Re:Hrmm by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's not defective, it's just that the eye is generating 32-bit values and the brain is expecting 16-bit ones, so there's an overflow and it aborts.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  13. Re:Hrmm by Urban+Garlic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    > It's a binocular world out there...

    It really isn't. Binocular stereopsis is not the most important depth cue that human vision uses, it's just a fairly compelling one that's easy to produce mechanically. Real-world vision uses a combination of relative size, parallax and relative motion, illumination, focus, and binocular cues to figure out depth information. There are one-eyed folks out there with excellent depth perception, and two-eyed folks with poor depth perception. Almost all of the depth action is visual-cortex post-processing.

    One of the causes of eyestrain from typical binocular 3D systems is that the images mix up the binocular and focal cues -- the binocular info says that the stuff is a few meters in front of you, but the focal cue says it's all in the same plane.

    I personally seem to be sensitive to the focal cue, for some reason -- I seem to get full-on migraines from ViewMaster[tm]-style binocular 3D viewers, and noticeable eyestrain from desktop-scale 3D systems, but can watch theatrical 3D movies comfortably, which I think is due to the differing screen sizes and distances.

    --
    2*3*3*3*3*11*251
  14. Re:Sky TV sets or LSD? by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm sorry, but your post annoyed me so much I'm going to have to give you an Unwanted education. I hope English isn't your native language.

  15. Re:Hrmm by spazdor · · Score: 4, Funny

    If it's impossible to correct vision in one of your eyes, then it sucks to be you.

    Insensitive clod.

    --
    DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
  16. Re:Hrmm by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

    But she can now, or is she dead? (Just messing with you on the use of past tense.)

    Is it beyond possibility that Hans Reiser would have a Slashdot account?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  17. Re:Like trying to by garompeta · · Score: 3, Funny

    Easy, give them some LSD and turn the music on!