Japan Lukewarm on 3D TVs

[Jumplion]

I wear glasses and I don't mind wearing 3D ones over them, so whatev on that.

I have to wonder, how many people here that are gabbing off about "3D is such a fad!" have actually played a 3D capable game? Or are you just basing 3D gaming on 3D movies? The way the two mediums integrate 3D is completely different, and I personally feel that 3D is much more relevant in gaming than in movies.

Anyway, on this topic, while over 9,000 surveyors is a large amount for a survey, there are still a couple things I'm reluctant on, mainly because Kotaku is not an official survey surveyor whatever. Then again I could just be splitting hairs in denial, but whatever, I personally don't care much for 3D but if I could get a 3D capable 3D I'd get one in a heartbeat. WipeoutHD in 3D is lurvley.

 

[grimsprice]

Google is your friend:
http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2010-01/its-about-time-3-d-comes-home

The relevant point: "Most new TVs are fast enough to do this, but to be 3-D-capable, TVs must include a converter chip and software to break down the signal and separate the left and right images. An infrared or radio beam syncs shutter glasses [below] with the screen to produce the final 3-D effect."

However, this is countered in the comments below:

"Most TV's even new 120hz displays can not do 3d and this is not because they don't have a separate chip or an ir transmitter. The only reason is that they cannot display from a 120hz source even if they claim to be 120hz displays. Instead they just mix two frames together to invent what they think the ones in between might look like." Which I think means "They aren't fast enough to do both images at real-time speeds"

edit: Oo! I found a better link a little lower in my search:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/3d-tv4.htm

Finally. Someone who can read a question and answer. Thanks. That makes more sense now.
Although I still wonder.....

This all still smells like a money grabbing technology bluff to me.

 

[Brok3n Halo]

What the he'll IS a 3D TV?

I can watch 3D stuff on my standard HD TV...

so what the bloody hell is the extra money spent on in making it???

It's the screen in combination with $100-150 glasses. I find the idea dumb, 3D tv just sounds distracting. The second something is half off-screen you will see the thing popping out and then promptly ending with the edge of the TV which will look about an inch or so back.

screen? Why is the screen so special?

As I said, you don't need a special screen to look at a 3D image.

Along with the glasses, it provides your eyes with two slightly different images that together create an impression of depth in what you're watching.

You're not listening to what I'm saying.

I know how 3D TVs work. And I'm saying you don't need a special screen to produce the two color shifted and offset images. I'm sure you can make a special screen that doesn't have to color shift the image. But what's the point? I've got a pair of 3d glasses I got out of a cereal box a decade ago, and I can look a HD 3D images on my laptop.

So again... What's the point?

Completely different tech. There are 4 major types of 3D display tech:

Anaglyphic 3D: This is the one your talking about, produces a 3D image but with some ghosting and horrible color distortion, this will work on any TV.

Polarization 3D: This is the style used in theaters, they do this by projecting two images on a screen and you have to where a pair of glasses. each lens is polarized differently and blocks one of the images for each eye allowing your eyes to see two different images giving you the 3D effect. It has less ghosting and no color distortion, however the lenses filter out half the light making the image darker. This is possible with two projectors as theaters do it or with a very specialized dual layer LCD setup for home. The screens/projectors are expensive but the glasses are really cheap and can be clip-on if you already where glasses.


Alternate-frame sequencing: This is the tech used in most 3D TVs today and by Nvidia's 3D kit for PCs, requires a special TV and a pair of expensive glasses for each viewer making this the most expensive to set up. How it works is every other frame of the video is meant for the opposite eye the TV has a system for communicating with the glasses (usually IR, like a TV remote) that informs the battery powered glasses which eye the given frame is for and the glasses block the light for the other eye. I've never used this system personally, but it should solve the ghosting issues of the two styles above because the light is completely blocked from the wrong eye and like Polarization doesn't suffer from color distortion. However I believe it still suffers from the loss of light (as you only have use of one eye at a time) and takes a halving in framerate.


Autostereoscopic displays: This is the future of 3D: glassesless. It's the tech used in the 3DS where a special designed screen sends different images to each eye simultaneously. This is by far the most expensive form of 3D and is so far only truly effective on smaller personal screens such a the 3DS. I've heard of some larger screens that use this at trade shows and the such but nothing coming to market. The key problem with the tech right now is that you have to have your head in the "sweet spot" to see the effect, which last I heard they managed to get about 9 simultaneous sweet spots on a screen each requiring very specific positions in the room. This method should be free of almost all the issues of the other systems except for price. The tech just isn't ready, but it's definitely the future. I have played with a early version of this system using dual LCDs and series of mirrors and it really is impressive.

Hope that all helps. More info on each system can be found on wikipedia if you want to know more about how they work.

NOTE: Ghosting is when the wrong eye sees pieces of the image meant for the other eye causing a sort of second translucent ghost copy of something on screen to be visible. This is caused because filtering light via cheap mass produced lenses is not perfect.

 

[shaboinkin]

It's like these companies are purposefully forgetting that people wear glasses. Yes, they are light. But no matter how light it is, glasses over glasses =/= comfortable. It ain't rocket science. Fix that and I might reconsider my stance on 3d (exception going to nintendo, cause they did it right).

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

What the he'll IS a 3D TV?

I can watch 3D stuff on my standard HD TV...

so what the bloody hell is the extra money spent on in making it???

It's the screen in combination with $100-150 glasses. I find the idea dumb, 3D tv just sounds distracting. The second something is half off-screen you will see the thing popping out and then promptly ending with the edge of the TV which will look about an inch or so back.

screen? Why is the screen so special?

As I said, you don't need a special screen to look at a 3D image.

Along with the glasses, it provides your eyes with two slightly different images that together create an impression of depth in what you're watching.

You're not listening to what I'm saying.

I know how 3D TVs work. And I'm saying you don't need a special screen to produce the two color shifted and offset images. I'm sure you can make a special screen that doesn't have to color shift the image. But what's the point? I've got a pair of 3d glasses I got out of a cereal box a decade ago, and I can look a HD 3D images on my laptop.

So again... What's the point?

Get more money from you, that's your point.

 

[Shamus Young]

Also, some TV's go to families. Sometimes you have friends over for a movie. Better hope you never have more people than glasses.

Ugh. And a big bin of plastic glasses by the TV. As if I wanted to add MORE stuff to the heap of consoles, players, senor bars, remotes, power cables, game controllers, and switchers.

And the glasses-on-glasses problem.

And the fact that no matter how "lightweight" those glasses are, it sucks wearing glasses that don't fit just right. If your head is slightly larger or smaller than average (like, if you're a big guy or a petite woman) then the glasses will be annoying and uncomfortable.

It might not be so bad if viewing the TV without glasses produced a regular image, but usually if you don't have glasses the thing is a mess. So the glasses aren't even optional.

 

[grimsprice]

Hope that all helps. More info on each system can be found on wikipedia if you want to know more about how they work.

NOTE: Ghosting is when the wrong eye sees pieces of the image meant for the other eye causing a sort of second translucent ghost copy of something on screen to be visible. This is caused because filtering light via cheap mass produced lenses is not perfect.

Thank you.

That was an excellent explanation.

 

[mjc0961]

What percentage of the population wear glasses? Real ones not 3D ones mind. Real glasses. I'm near-sighted (I think, I get the two mixed up, the one where I can see fine up close, but a meter or two away things get progressively fuzzier) so I need glasses to watch even a big screen TV or movie screen with any clarity, and my glasses a light, and fine, and I can wear them for hours without being bothered...

However when I get stuck with 3D I need to add a second pair of glasses over my existing ones in order to see what is going on, after maybe 30mins of that while watching Avatar my ears and nose were hurting, my eyes were watering, and I was developing a monster migraine.

So when people say they don't want to wear 3D glasses maybe people like Sony's head moron should take into account that some of them at least already wear glasses and really really don't want another set ontop.

My thoughts exactly. No matter what they do, they keep designing these glasses under the assumption that the person wearing them doesn't already have a pair just to correct their normal vision. So their glasses will always be uncomfortable for those of us who already have to wear a pair regardless of how much buzz they try to generate for them.

 

[Pendragon9]

I couldn't afford these TVs anyway, so stick to your guns Japan.

 

[Jumplion]

What percentage of the population wear glasses? Real ones not 3D ones mind. Real glasses. I'm near-sighted (I think, I get the two mixed up, the one where I can see fine up close, but a meter or two away things get progressively fuzzier) so I need glasses to watch even a big screen TV or movie screen with any clarity, and my glasses a light, and fine, and I can wear them for hours without being bothered...

However when I get stuck with 3D I need to add a second pair of glasses over my existing ones in order to see what is going on, after maybe 30mins of that while watching Avatar my ears and nose were hurting, my eyes were watering, and I was developing a monster migraine.

So when people say they don't want to wear 3D glasses maybe people like Sony's head moron should take into account that some of them at least already wear glasses and really really don't want another set ontop.

My thoughts exactly. No matter what they do, they keep designing these glasses under the assumption that the person wearing them doesn't already have a pair just to correct their normal vision. So their glasses will always be uncomfortable for those of us who already have to wear a pair regardless of how much buzz they try to generate for them.

Like I've said before, I wear glasses and I don't mind the 3D glasses. But then again, that's a personal issue.

And I'm still curious as to how many people have played a 3D game before, and I have yet to get an answer. They are not the same as 3D movies, and like I said before, 3D has more potential in video games than in movies.

 

[Pipotchi]

I didnt pay £2000 for laser eye surgery so I could stick another pair of glasses on my face. No bloody chance Sony

Any side effects with that? I wanna get it but I'm a pussy about it. I keep imagining they'll screw up and I'll go blind.

OT: Well 3D without glasses on a big scale is impossible atm, soo I guess people can either wear them or not buy 3D tvs. Either way I hope the price goes down because 3D games with the PS3 are amazinggg!

Nah good as gold mate, blurry as hell for the rest of the day but 24 hours on 20/20 vision in each eye. Three months later my right eye has deterioated a little so I might have to go for a touch up in a couple of months but still well worth the money. I did it with optical express if that helps.

Oh yeah they sent me a bunch of vouchers for Money off for referals so if you do decide to go for it let me know and I will post you one, should save you a couple of hundred quid.

 

[SomeUnregPunk]

I want a Projector. Like 126 inch Screen. That'd be Funtastic.

http://www.projectorreviews.com/

it gives you an idea on how much money you need. If you are going to buy a projector then buy the latest one because in most cases the image is clearer at bigger screen sizes. Projector is the cheaper and more portable choice. Except you need speakers in some cases.

So I have to shell out 2 to 4 grand for a 3D tv that requires you to wear glasses or I could shell out $300 to $1000 for a projector.

 

[soapyshooter]

I didnt pay £2000 for laser eye surgery so I could stick another pair of glasses on my face. No bloody chance Sony

Any side effects with that? I wanna get it but I'm a pussy about it. I keep imagining they'll screw up and I'll go blind.

OT: Well 3D without glasses on a big scale is impossible atm, soo I guess people can either wear them or not buy 3D tvs. Either way I hope the price goes down because 3D games with the PS3 are amazinggg!

Nah good as gold mate, blurry as hell for the rest of the day but 24 hours on 20/20 vision in each eye. Three months later my right eye has deterioated a little so I might have to go for a touch up in a couple of months but still well worth the money. I did it with optical express if that helps.

Oh yeah they sent me a bunch of vouchers for Money off for referals so if you do decide to go for it let me know and I will post you one, should save you a couple of hundred quid.

I live in the US so those wont help haha. But thanks anyway . I'll have to man up and get it done soon. I'm tired to glasses and contacts. So it doesn't stay 20/20 permanently? you have to go back to the ophthalmologist? or was that deterioration specific to you?

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

I'm Waiting for Holograms...

 

[Pipotchi]

I didnt pay £2000 for laser eye surgery so I could stick another pair of glasses on my face. No bloody chance Sony

Any side effects with that? I wanna get it but I'm a pussy about it. I keep imagining they'll screw up and I'll go blind.

OT: Well 3D without glasses on a big scale is impossible atm, soo I guess people can either wear them or not buy 3D tvs. Either way I hope the price goes down because 3D games with the PS3 are amazinggg!

Nah good as gold mate, blurry as hell for the rest of the day but 24 hours on 20/20 vision in each eye. Three months later my right eye has deterioated a little so I might have to go for a touch up in a couple of months but still well worth the money. I did it with optical express if that helps.

Oh yeah they sent me a bunch of vouchers for Money off for referals so if you do decide to go for it let me know and I will post you one, should save you a couple of hundred quid.

I live in the US so those wont help haha. But thanks anyway . I'll have to man up and get it done soon. I'm tired to glasses and contacts. So it doesn't stay 20/20 permanently? you have to go back to the ophthalmologist? or was that deterioration specific to you?

Nah Specific to me, just one of those things as they never know how your eyes are going to heal. I was Minus 6 in each Eye so pretty blind but now one eye is perfect and one eye is minus 0.5. However it should be easy to fix that one again (for free) in about a month or two but they need to let it finish healing as it might get better on its own.

Ideally it should stay perfect from now until about 40 or so as thats when your eyes start to go downhill just with age, reading glasses and the like

 

[Darth Sea Bass]

What percentage of the population wear glasses? Real ones not 3D ones mind. Real glasses. I'm near-sighted (I think, I get the two mixed up, the one where I can see fine up close, but a meter or two away things get progressively fuzzier) so I need glasses to watch even a big screen TV or movie screen with any clarity, and my glasses a light, and fine, and I can wear them for hours without being bothered...

However when I get stuck with 3D I need to add a second pair of glasses over my existing ones in order to see what is going on, after maybe 30mins of that while watching Avatar my ears and nose were hurting, my eyes were watering, and I was developing a monster migraine.

So when people say they don't want to wear 3D glasses maybe people like Sony's head moron should take into account that some of them at least already wear glasses and really really don't want another set ontop.

Bravo sir!!!

 

[squid5580]

The only real problem I have with 3D-tv's is the price - I have nothing against the concept, and it seems like a much bigger leap forward compared to SD -> HD (which you can barely recognise, frankly), and I don't really mind wearing the glasses... except that I already wear glasses. If they designed them so that you can wear them over your own glasses comfortably, then I'd have no problem with wearing the things.

Yes I don't understand why this is such a hard concept for them to grasp. Tons of people wear glasses to see. So why isn't there a clip or even a dorky old people glasses that fit over normal glasses. I think Sony should have invested in Laser Eye Surgery technology first. Free Lasik for you and your family with every 3D TV purchase.