Hirai: "3D best enjoyed on big-screen"

By Robert Purchese Published 9 September, 2010

"The right experience" for today.

Sony's Kaz Hirai has declared that 3D entertainment will be "best enjoyed on a big screen".

His comments are a nod to Nintendo's 3DS, which will have launched globally by the end in April.

"3D is best enjoyed on a big screen," Hirai told MCV. "And the important thing for us is 3D combined with Move. The Move controller is not just about up, down, left and right, but also depth control as well. And all that is really a home-based console experience, which to me is the right 3D experience given the state of the art we have today."

With 38 million PlayStation 3 units sold globally, Hirai said Sony was a "very important driving force for 3D adoption with consumers around the world".

"That's not to diminish the role of other Sony companies," he added.

"This is not just for Sony, this is for anybody that wants to get into 3D content creation. We will share the expertise that we have developed over the years in creating good 3D content, that doesn't tire the eye and doesn't have images jumping out at you all the time. This is to make sure we are playing our part to drive mass adoption of 3D, not just for Sony but as an industry."

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (69) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • darkmorgado #1 1 year ago

    Lol. I initially read that as "best enjoyed on the big screen" and that Kaz was saying it wouldn't catch on.

    Kind of disappointed to be honest :-(

  • bad09 #2 1 year ago

    3D better on big telly, brought to you by big telly company. Is this news or an ad?

  • Raznilof #3 1 year ago

    Company spokesman praises company product.

    Not exactly news but not exactly out of context on a games website either. Hope they do get to make the experience better though, just cannot afford to "fund" it as an early adopter. In a sense, Nintendo is actually paving the way for Sony, perhaps they shouldn't be so dismissive about it?


  • ZizouFC #4 1 year ago

    More importantly:

    Why is news at the bottom of the homepage... for me at least?

  • randompanda #5 1 year ago

    3D is best enjoyed without glasses

  • DarkMoon #6 1 year ago

    @ZizouFC: not just you mate. happening to me as well. its a bit annoying.

    ah seems to have corrected itself.
    Edited by 1 at 09/09/10 @ 12:36

  • BabyJesus #7 1 year ago

    Thanks for the Infomericial by any chance do you have the number for 5 second ab master while you're at it?

  • LazyDan #8 1 year ago

    Hirai: "3D best enjoyed on big-screen" ...Until the next PSP rips handheld 3D off.

  • lambtron #9 1 year ago

    "A big LOL at the haters. Go hug your 50 kg SDTV :D "

    It's virtually impossible to buy SDTVs anymore, but please, continue making non-points.

  • spekkeh #10 1 year ago

    Ik believe everything he says without the need for scientific inquiry.

    or maybe not.

  • richardiox #11 1 year ago

    "Big screens that just happen to be made by our company"
    "Blu Ray that just happen to be made by our company"
    "UMDs that just happen to be made by our company"

    etc

  • Markusdragon #12 1 year ago

    He's right, 3D is best enjoyed on a big screen. However, Iron Maiden are best seen live, but I don't have the money to get them to play in my living room, so hearing them on an MP3 player will suffice for the time being.
    Not that I'm saying that in a decade or so Iron Maiden will be affordable enough for everyone to invite into their living room, that's where the analogy falls apart, but the rest is pretty much correct.

  • Colin8703 #13 1 year ago

    Sony guy in pushing 3D TV shocker.

    I have no issue with 3D as it's fantastic BTW. Just laughing at his comment.

  • madgerald Verified Studio Head of PR & Marketing, Colossal Games LTD #14 1 year ago

    @babyjesus - its the 6second ab master

  • PlugMonkey #15 1 year ago

    He's right, 3D is best enjoyed on a big screen.

    I don't think he is right, though. I think he's got it completely backwards.

    Stereopsis (in the real world) is used in short range depth perception. By about 3m (I think it's 3m. University was a long time ago...) the visual information being received by both your eyes is so similar that there is virtually nothing to be gained from it. That's why films need to magnify the effect in a way that makes some peoples' eyes hurt. They have to force a difference on you that wouldn't be there if you were viewing the scene naturally.

    A hand held device has none of these problems though, as it never has to operate at anything beyond arms length. That means it can deliver a compelling and natural stereoscopic 3D effect.

  • moggsy #16 1 year ago

    If you hold the 3DS up to your face it's display is as big as you want it to be.

  • Bibbo #17 1 year ago

    That's all well and good, but you better not go 3D only you shits. There's a few of us out there that can't enjoy 3D, my optician confirmed this morning, I can't enjoy 3D.

    So looks like I'll be buying a beefier LED come xmas, but the 3D will remain off.

  • sfp_noodle #18 1 year ago

    @ noface

    You really are a little shit. I think I speak for everybody here on EG.

  • kangarootoo #19 1 year ago

    @noface

    Hey, we get that you like 3D TVs.

    So do I.

    The difference being that I don't take it as a personal insult when others say they don't. If you harp on about it too much, people will start to think you have a hidden agenda of some sort.


    And on the "bringing it closer to your eyes" comment (which I realise was in jest - but just for technical discussion), the way the 3DS works requires a specific viewing distance, relative to the distance between your eyes. Moving it closer would bugger up the effect. Carry on.

  • kangarootoo #20 1 year ago

    @sfp_noodle

    Over-reaction?

  • kangarootoo #21 1 year ago

    @noface

    Well ok, so you are slightly over enthusiastic. Probably better than fervent cynisism (which is rather more common).

    Some might say however that winding people up because you are bored is a bit childish. Some might...

  • miiiguel #22 1 year ago

    noface, don't forget to ask your parents to get you a bigger bedroom for that 50" TV.

  • PlugMonkey #23 1 year ago

    "IT WILL CATCH ON. "

    Not with me, Bibbo and the rest of the "Ah! Jesus! My eyes!" crowd, unfortunately.

    Bibbo: Did your optician explain why it doesn't work for you? I could never get those Magic Eye pictures to work either. That wasn't so bad though because a) they didn't actually hurt and b) no-one was suggesting replacing all normal pictures with them.

  • miiiguel #24 1 year ago

    I'm sorry to hear that. Darwin fail.

  • kangarootoo #25 1 year ago

    "31 years old"

    You realise, this makes things worse. If you were 14, you would have an excuse.

  • El-Dev #26 1 year ago

    "no-one was suggesting replacing all normal pictures with them."

    I always thought 3D was an alternative, not the new standard.

  • KayJay #27 1 year ago

    I like noface. Hell, he can come over and fuck my sister...

  • ZizouFC #28 1 year ago

    Who says "haters" anyway?

  • KayJay #29 1 year ago

    It might be even less of an issue soon.
    A UK retail optician are offering proper prescription lenses with 3D incorporated. You have the option to get the full glasses or just special clip on 3D bits that attached to the current glasses you wear.

    Pretty cool.

  • Rack #30 1 year ago

    @Plugmonkey. Does that actually matter so much? My TV is about 2 metres from the sofa and I don't think it's that atypical. That's plenty of space within that 3m distance.

  • awithers #31 1 year ago

    noface - I'm in agreement with most of what you are saying, keep fighting the good fight.

    and I'm bored at work too. and I'm 32. and if it's ok I'd rather you didn't come over and f*ck my sister.

  • kangarootoo #32 1 year ago

    @noface

    I'm not critising your english. Its very good, and the country you are in isn't relevant.

    I'm critisising your continued efforts to annoy those that disagree with you, starting with "A big LOL at the haters. Go hug your 50 kg SDTV :D ", along with baiting comments like "come neg this:".

    I've said already, I like 3D and I want a 3D TV, but I don't really mind if not everyone shares my view. I find your angsty flag waiving a little much, that is all.

  • Goodfella #33 1 year ago

    Why all the hate towards noface?!

    I really can't see what he's done wrong, and he's rather amusing. :D

    And, erm, yeah 3D is ace.

  • xentar #34 1 year ago

    I get the feeling that most of the 3D hates didnt even seen one much less played in 3D on 50" TV set... There is much to be said against Sony - like diminished grpahcs in first bunch of 3D games for PS3, but the truth is, 3D gaming is fun (just tied GT5 in 3D at IFA Berlin electronic show last week) and that 3D works nice with Move - the only problem is I only had a short time with 3D+Move in Tumble which is more prrof of concept than a game to me.

    http://pi casaweb.google.com/lh/photo/6Kh...
    Edited by 1 at 09/09/10 @ 14:16

  • benfresh76 #35 1 year ago

    Home 3D with glasses is a complete white elephant. The image of families sitting round their huge TV's in matching specs is exactly the kind of depressing, dystopian vision of our relationship with technology that Sony was so successful in overcoming (in relation to gaming) with the massive popularity of the original Playstation, and Nintendo has continued with the Wii...Kaz Hirai needs to go, the guy is either A. On drugs; B. Insane; C. Completely out of touch; D. All of the above.

  • Nabokov #36 1 year ago

    The technology they need to put in TV is actually really cheap, so why not; basically just more processor power to handle two pictures instead of one, nothing special. But I guess that instead of frame interpolation you could handle the 3D with most of the current machines. In theory. Anyway, in future it won't add any cost to TV. The glasses and transmitter can be optional, so you don't have to pay for those if you don't want to. Also in games, if the engine supports it, it's quite trivial.

    So I agree with noface, excpet that 50" is way too small for TV. Really annoying that they are not releasing any single reasonably priced projector dufing this round.

  • xentar #37 1 year ago

    @benfresh76 for watching cartoons maybe, for gaming? The glasses present no problem at all, when a game is immersive you dont need to look your friends into the eye, your eyes are drawn to the screen action. at least that works for me when we playtest new 3D TVs at my house with friends. The only problem is when there is more poeple interested in the gameplay than you have glasses, watching the blurry 3D image wihtout them is tiring

  • Sonic_D #38 1 year ago

    Like an IMAX screen you mean?

  • Gambit1977 #39 1 year ago

    Depth control sounds cool.

    /stealth real post

  • des #40 1 year ago

    EG...3D best enjoyed on big-screen

  • kangarootoo #41 1 year ago

    @benfresh76

    The term "early adopter" may be something you are not familiar with. Nobody is saying that the first version of 3D TV is the version that we will all be using forever. It has its pros (its 3D) and it has its cons (you need glasses). Like all tech, it will change and evolve, and the pros will multiple and the cons will reduce. There is nothing new going on here that hasn't been the case with any new product.

  • Widge #42 1 year ago

    Lots of people talking about glasses, Hirai not being one of them.

  • kangarootoo #43 1 year ago

    Well he doesn't speak for everyone clearly, and because it is clear, you really don't need to respond.

  • tickleygonad #44 1 year ago

    Oh I can't wait to have my friends round for the first showing on my brand new 3D tv... Of course I'll be the only person with glasses at £80 each... I guess we can all take turns looking like twats!!!... Hang on, think am I the only twat for spending a stupid amount of money on a pointless fad!!!

  • benfresh76 #45 1 year ago

    @kangarootoo: I'm perfectly familiar with the term early adopter, I just happen to think that home 3D will not take off, certainly not in the way that Kaz seems to be selling what is clearly (and obviously) an early iteration of the technology. Personally, I wouldn't want all of my content (TV, games, movies) delivered in 3D; I feel that it is a nice gimmick occasionally enjoyed at the cinema with the right kind of movie (usually big budget, effect laden trash-3D can only enhance that kind of experience).

    I'm sure that eventually the glasses won't figure in the equation (because they will be unpopular), I'm just amazed, given that gaming tech is currently striving to break down and simplify the way we interface with technology in order to court the untapped mainstream market, that Sony thinks this way of delivering the home 3D experience will ever capture the imagination of the masses, which is why, for me, it's a white elephant.

  • kangarootoo #46 1 year ago

    @benfresh76

    Well, to stretch the analogy still further, all it has to do to take off is "get off the ground". If we are both talking about how 3D might evolve, then surely we both expect it to "take off". I'm not sure even Kaz expects a set in every living room within 5 years (he hasn't said as much to my knowledge).

    "Personally, I wouldn't want all of my content (TV, games, movies) delivered in 3D"

    3D will always be optional (within a time frame that matters anyway), regardless of what content is created that supports it.

  • darkmorgado #47 1 year ago

    You do realize the success John Cameron's Avatar had. The majority of people don't have problems with 3D.

    Yes, but it doesn't follow that everyone wants to watch everything in 3D. Avatar was a blip; 3D revenue in cinema has been on a very fast, hard drop since to the point where it generates barely more revenue, and often less, than 2D.

    That says to me that people are actually getting bored of the fad.

  • benfresh76 #48 1 year ago

    @kangarootoo: "3D will always be optional (within a time frame that matters anyway), regardless of what content is created that supports it."

    Well, that's a very expensive 'option', especially given the fact that many people have only just jumped on the 'HD' bandwagon (5 years is a short space of time for most people to upgrade their tech).

    As an example, I'd be genuinely interested to know how successful even something like the Blu-Ray format has been as an indicator of how keen regular people (i.e. not early adopters) are to invest fairly large sums of money in this kind of technology, regardless of how essential you or I may or may not feel HD (or 3D for that matter) is.

    I think the Nintendo approach (and I'm not a fan boy) is the right way to go when trying to push cutting edge tech like 3D and motion control etc; make it accessible, cheap and fully functional from day 1. The Wii did not have to rely on early adopters for it's incredible success, on the contrary, it was the early adopters (the core market) that, by and large, became the naysayers; neither was the technology iterated in any way whatsoever before it succeeded in appealing to the masses...I wonder how successful motion plus has been? I daresay, the 3DS will be another cake walk for Nintendo, they just seem to have incredible instinct for hitting that apparently elusive (from Sony's POV at least) 'sweet spot' between innovation, pricing, content and the 'magic' that really captures people's imaginations.

    Just my opinion.

  • kangarootoo #49 1 year ago

    @noface

    The price of the specs is a little high right now I agree, in fact THAT is the glasses related barrier for me. Its not that you have to wear glasses (which of course isn't something to be pleased about, but I think a lot of people make more of a fuss about it than is really genuine) - the problem for me is that the cost of glasses means you can't just load up on 5 or 6 pairs for when your friends come round.

    But then the first versions of new tech are always pricey. That is why only early adopters buy it, at a premium, to get the experience is provides asap. The full "the whole family can watch" experience is off the menu for many people because of the glasses cost (or until a time when glasses aren't needed), but then the first taste of these things will never be the whole experience that we will enjoy years down the road.

    The current tech may not be perfect, but its a necessary step. I think when people use the flaws of the current tech to dismiss the whole subject of 3D, now and in the future, they are deliberately being obtuse (and its never pretty to see someone pretend to be less clever than they are in order to make a point).


    On a general note, I think 3D has its place. Its a shame when these discussions turn into battles, where people feel they must state extreme cases in order to be heard. Of course nobody wants every thing from soap operas to weather reports to be in 3D. Equally, some films benefit from it (Avatar) whereas others wouldn't (Shindler's List). I think that the people that 3D has no place in media of any kind of in the minority, and I think half of them only state that belief in response to an equally unbalanced "3D in everything is great" point of view from "the opposition".


    I agree with noface that games are one of the areas where 3D makes a difference in terms of quality. People really should try it before dismissing it. If all they have experienced is clumsy mis-use of 3D in some cinema films, they don't have a true reference by which to judge 3D in games. In FPS and driving games, where a sense of depth and position is VITAL, 3D really does improve the experience (for those that can view it without problems of couse).

  • kangarootoo #50 1 year ago

    @benfresh76

    "Well, that's a very expensive 'option'"

    Well, yes it is. But new stuff always is. And it always gets cheaper.


    "I think the Nintendo approach (and I'm not a fan boy) is the right way to go when trying to push cutting edge tech like 3D and motion control etc; make it accessible, cheap and fully functional from day 1."

    I'm not sure that is quite the right example to use though. Nintendo clearly chose the right option for what they were producing, but (and like yourself, I'm not being a fanboy in this comment) I think it is a bit off the mark to describe the Wii as cutting edge technology. The Wii isn't really powerful or new in technology terms, what made it a success was what it DID with its technology (revolution, if you like).

    3D TV is slightly different in that its an evolution rather than revolution, but the tech involved is powerful, and that brings with it a cost.

    Another way to look at it is that nobody will be hiking up the price of 3D TVs to make big profits. They will WANT the price to be low, but the tech involved means they can't make it rock bottom just yet. The Wii was cheap to sell, because it was cheap to make.

  • benfresh76 #51 1 year ago

    @kangarootoo: You're right, I 'misspoke' when I called the Wii 'cutting edge technology', but where Nintendo succeeded was in selling an 'idea' and convincing the non-gaming masses that they wanted it (with content, pricing, marketing and 'magic')...Cutting edge or not, there's no denying the extent to which the Wii has changed the landscape. Surely the mainstream market success of the Wii suggests that the vast majority of people (who have only just gone HD) are not so concerned about technology as they are about the experience it will give them and whether that experience represents value...This is off topic, apologies.

    I agree that 3D is merely an iteration of current tech, but these 'iterations' are now occurring all too frequently to be relevant to the consumer market...I pity the early adopters that fork out god knows how much for their 3D TV only for a 'spec's free' experience to launch in 12 months.

    3D will probably succeed eventually, but I think it's a long way off, and in all likelihood, there'll be some shinier new gimmick by then to convince (and confuse) people they want instead.

  • kangarootoo #52 1 year ago

    @benfresh76

    No need to apologise. Discussions shift, and so they should. If we were still talking about exactly the same thing after 50 posts, things would get stale.

    "Surely the mainstream market success of the Wii suggests that the vast majority of people" etc

    I don't think companies are ever quite aioming at the same market though. A majority only exists when you have context (a majority of families, a majority of male gamers between 14-24, a majority of cats). 3D TVs are perhaps not aimed at exactly the same group of people as the Wii, so the "majority" cannot be exactly the same either. There will of course be overlap.


    "I pity the early adopters that fork out god knows how much for their 3D TV only for a 'spec's free' experience to launch in 12 months."

    That is the risk all early adopters embrace though. If you are an early adopter, you have to expect to not only pay more, but to also do so more frequently. As a self confessed early adopter friend of mine said to me "you have to take the rought with the smooth".


    "3D will probably succeed eventually, but I think it's a long way off"

    If by "take off" you mean "everyone has one" then I agree completely. But then I think Kaz probably would too :)

  • darth_paul #53 1 year ago

    of course... like the ones sony sells for 1000's of €/£.
    If Eurogamer doesnt have any news to publish, then why not stay put, and NOT publish every c*** the companies say

  • PlugMonkey #54 1 year ago

    El-Dev
    "I always thought 3D was an alternative, not the new standard."

    You’d think, but I’m currently faced with the very real prospect of not being able to see the new Resident Evil film in the cinema without manufacturing myself a pair of 2D glasses.

    noface
    "It's like saying bikes never catch on, because there are people who can't use their legs. You do realize the success John Cameron's Avatar had. The majority of people don't have problems with 3D."

    That’s what I used to think, until my legendary straw poll!:

    (You’ll have to turn your comments threshold to ‘show all’ to see the damn thing.)

    [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles /xbox-360-and-lg-enter-3d-partnership/comments
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/xbox-3...[/link]

    That's my most negged comment ever, and that really is saying something. Quite a lot of people have a problem with 3D. We all sit there in the cinema with one eye closed, terrified we'll be flogged and pilloried if people catch on to our terrible secret.

    We're forming support groups now though. We'll be OK.

    I am dimly aware of the success of Avatar, believe it or not. I also know quite literally dozens of people who would have preferred to see it in 2D. I honestly did use to think it was just me and my bandy eyes, but I’m afraid we are a bandy eyed legion. I've got nothing against you loving it. In fact, I'm quite jealous, but where you go a very significant portion of the population cannot follow. :(

    Rack
    @Plugmonkey. Does that actually matter so much? My TV is about 2 metres from the sofa and I don't think it's that atypical. That's plenty of space within that 3m distance.

    Well, it decays sort of exponentially, so at 3m it’s gone, at 2m it’s not much, at 1m it’s a bit and at 0.5m it’s good. Or something approximately along those lines. And then the things on your telly are beyond your telly, in terms of depth, if you see what I mean.

    The point is that to make it work on a telly on the other side of the room, you will need to do something a bit unnatural, but to make it work on something in the palm of your hand, you shouldn’t. So I think Hirai is talking balls.

    It also means that even as a bandy-eyed 3D sceptic, I’m still quite intrigued about the 3DS. I might actually get to enjoy this new 3D phenomenon instead of getting a migraine. Which would be nice.

    As for games, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, head tracking mapped to parallax movement please! Stop blindly following movies up this depth perception cul-de-sac and start filling in the remaining missing major depth perception cue we actually use in real life. It can’t work in movies, it can work in games. So put it in games.

    EDIT: Oh, Christ that's turned into another trademark PlugMonkey wall-of-text-athon. If you've got to this point without skipping, help yourself to a biscuit. You've earnt it.
    Edited by 1 at 09/09/10 @ 18:29

  • Geowolf #55 1 year ago

    Sony clearly feeling under threat. Not just from 3DS but I'd say Toshiba releasing a 21inch 3D screen that doesn't require glasses this year probably has something to do with it as well. Sony invested heavily in glasses-based 3D technology and non-glasses 3D is clearly at the point of overtaking them already. Of course, they have more to fear from Toshiba. As they say, "Payback's a ..."

  • xavier_dragoon #56 1 year ago

    If the headline hadn't paraphrased in a way that borders on libel this wouldn't even be an article. Unless it said:

    "Head of PlayStation implies his product to be superior!"

    I'd have clicked it...

  • Phantom_Dynamite #57 1 year ago

    Say what you want about the 3DS, but at least the games line up is amazing looks like Nintendo is going back to a solid core game line up.

  • witchdrash #58 1 year ago

    I know there's a lot of haters of this tech, mostly around the glasses, but most 3DTVs sold out on launch in the UK alone, that suggests it's far from a failure.

    3D glasses free tech will come, it's inevitable, in 12 months, not a chance, 3DS works because it relies on the user being in one position, you try getting a cheap glasses free experience that can cater for 8 people, not going to happen for a long long time, 5 years min I would guess.

    @Nabokov it's not like the 3DTVs are expensive this time round because they're 3D, it's because they're the top of the range models for this years tv, nothing to do with 3D, it's just the new feature is included, same every year, new features go in the expensive sets and trickle down in later years. For some reason people seem to think that £1000/£2000 is a lot for 3d, but there's always going to be a £1000/£2000 set released every year, just next year's £500 models will also have 3D, then the year after the £250s, then it will be a standard feature
    Edited by 1 at 09/09/10 @ 22:41

  • el_pollo_diablo #59 1 year ago

    I don't think 3D TV is a piece of shit, but I do think it's come along at a bad time.

    Quite aside from the fact that people are skint at the moment, HD televisions have only fairly recently dropped to mass market prices. I picked up my first 1080p TV just under than 2 years ago for example, and I'm not planning on buying another one for another 10 years.


  • alcides #60 1 year ago

    wow I just don't get the rant that's going on with noface...
    guy's got money.
    mob's got frustration.

    I think noface's point is that 3D is attractive, and that a [potential half EG readership] + 20 bunch of 3D haters can't do anything about it.

    Heck I was even called an idiot in these forums for WANTING a 3D screen. In what universe could that be idiotic to find a new exciting technology attractive? I think the whole freaking PS3 lineup is reason enough to upgrade. This is a free land and I do what I want. Get over it sceptics, haters, fanboys, broke lads.

  • drumbaby #61 1 year ago

    "3D is best enjoyed without glasses"

    I'll remember that the next time I'm at the cinema.

  • drumbaby #62 1 year ago

    If Sony ends up with a large library of games made to work in 3D as well as 2D (interchangeable) and they can presumably play on any 3D hardware system (with or without glasses...I'm guessing that you'll be able to hook up a PS3 to whatever 3D TV comes along) then what's the problem, especially if it's an option?

  • kangarootoo #63 1 year ago

    @alcides

    noface was being needlessly angsty, and has admitted as much. Things have cooled down now and everyone is chatting along very pleasantly. Stop trying to stir things up again. Please :)

  • PlugMonkey #64 1 year ago

    "wow I just don't get the rant that's going on with noface...
    guy's got money.
    mob's got frustration."

    I think he got up a few peoples' noses with his rhetoric. Personally, I find it refreshing to find anyone who is excited about anything around these parts. :)

    "I think noface's point is that 3D is attractive, and that a [potential half EG readership] + 20 bunch of 3D haters can't do anything about it."

    Well, that's the debate, really. It's attractive to some. Will it take off, and if so, when? I currently have an HD TV, but out of the 60 or so TV channels I get, how many broadcast in HD? 6? I can get as excited about HD as I like, but until it gets truly mass market, most broadcasters are going to continue to ignore it.

    If 3D is fundamentally incompatible with 50% of the population's eyeballs (to give a speculative example), that uptake amongst the people who actually make the content is going to take even longer. It might never happen.

    Same thing with games. If adding 3D involves enabling the 3D library Sony send you, a lot of devs will do it. If it requires extra render code support, then needs balancing, then needs its own lighting pass, then needs testing etc. etc., and 50% of your audience can't ever use it anyway...well...how many games currently output true HD?

    I see this is all going predictably "3D lovers" and "3D haters". Why can't we have a debate without people assuming there is some sort of partisan split?

  • PlugMonkey #65 1 year ago

    Or rather than "It might never happen", "It might get overtaken by holographic 3D projectors" (for example).

  • kangarootoo #66 1 year ago

    "Why can't we have a debate without people assuming there is some sort of partisan split?"

    Well said.

  • Geowolf #67 1 year ago

    @ witchdrash - "I know there's a lot of haters of this tech, mostly around the glasses, but most 3DTVs sold out on launch in the UK alone, that suggests it's far from a failure. "

    Would like to know where you got your statistics from. The only study on 3DTV sales that I know of is the one specifying that only 2% of UK has any interest in considering buying a 3DTV. Most stores I know only got a couple to demo and none have had any interest returned.

    This technology will survive through the evolution of Toshiba's 21inch glasses three 3D monitor technology being released this year as they scale it up to TV sizes, and, only when prices fall.

  • Sunyavadin #68 1 year ago

    Buy our expensive new TVs!

    And while you're at it, buy the MOST expensive of the lot!

  • Sunyavadin #69 1 year ago

    I get the feeling that most of the 3D hates didnt even seen one much less played in 3D on 50" TV set...

    Ignoring the grammar here... My local big store has a massive department now, devoted to 3D TVs. The Sony ones had horrible flickering, like watching my old black and white set (Not the interlaced one, which my master system was hooked up to until 1992, the other one, with the terrible framerate) while they had chosen some Pixar film for the polarised ones - which only served to highlight the colour loss when viewed next to the HD sets across the room showing the same film with vibrant colour...

    Stereopsis (in the real world) is used in short range depth perception. By about 3m (I think it's 3m. University was a long time ago...) the visual information being received by both your eyes is so similar that there is virtually nothing to be gained from it. That's why films need to magnify the effect in a way that makes some peoples' eyes hurt. They have to force a difference on you that wouldn't be there if you were viewing the scene naturally.

    THIS. The perspective in 3D films is so very wrong, it can feel like staring at an Escher painting, trying to visualise components relative to each other which are placed in conflicting perspective.