Sony responds to 3D glasses complaints

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 22 July, 2011

Glasses-free has "inherent limitations".

Glasses-free stereoscopic 3D has "inherent limitations", Sony has said.

Responding to complaints about having to wear glasses to view games and movies in stereoscopic 3D, the PlayStation 3 manufacturer explained why it's the best solution – and will be for a good while.

"There are already glasses-free TVs, big screens and small screens out there," Mick Hocking, Sony's 3D gaming boss, told Eurogamer at the Develop conference this week.

"The problem with glasses-free, or auto-stereoscopic as it's called, is that it has inherent limitations.

"With stereoscopic 3D, however you do it, you've got to get one image to the left eye and one image to the right eye to produce the stereoscopic effect. So with all these screens they typically have a sweet spot for where you need to put your head in distance and in angle, and if you move your head relative to it, you break the 3D effect until you get into the next pair of images, and you see artefacts going across the screen.

"We've also seen with mobile devices, if it's a mobile device you move relative to your head and it's got a 3D screen, that will break the 3D effect. It won't work very well.

"There's lots and lots of work going on on auto-stereoscopic screens because people wearing glasses is something extra for them to do to enjoy the content. We've been saying over the last 12 months, if the content is good enough and compelling enough, the only way at the moment to enjoy full high definition 3D is on TVs with the glasses."

In March Korean consumer electronics giant Samsung doubted glasses-free 3DTVs would be released within the next 10 years.

"Considering our current technology, we can make glasses-free 3DTV in R&D level, however it can be viewed from only a few viewing spots," Samsung said.

"To make naturally viewed glasses-free 3DTV, for instance in a living room where several people can watch TV from various angles, it needs at least 32 viewing spots.

"We believe that creating a prototype for lab-grade glasses-free 3DTV, broadcasting system and display will take about five years.

"For mass commercialisation to become possible manufacturing costs must come down and TV broadcasters will have to upgrade infrastructure, which includes securing transmission band.

"Attempts to put glasses-free 3DTV to market within the next 10 years will be difficult."

Sony has of course bet big on stereoscopic 3D, investing heavily in the tech for its TVs, movies and gaming on the PlayStation 3.

But for many, having to wear active-shutter glasses to see 3D visuals turns them off to the tech.

In October last year a study suggested 80 per cent of gamers were willing to wear 3D glasses to play video games, and Hocking told us the glasses are getting better.

"The glasses are getting cheaper and lighter all the time, and less invasive in the process," he said.

"With the way it's going, you could see a point in the future where someone will come up with a way of doing glasses-free technology without any of the restrictions.

"At the moment, if you want to sit there and watch a film or play a game, if you keep your head still you could do it on a glasses free. It would be OK. Then if your family or friends want to sit and watch it with you they can't share that experience with you at the moment.

"So it's not an easy problem to solve. Certainly in the short term, HD 3D is best enjoyed on an active shutter glass solution and big screen TV, and that's what we've been focusing on."

According to latest statistics, about 2.5 per cent of HDTVs in the UK are now 3D, and data suggests by 2015 nearly 40 per cent of all new TVs sold will be 3D-enabled.

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (83) Latest comment 7 months ago

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

  • Rack #1 7 months ago

    Honestly I believe them, the 3D on 3DS is horrible but I still don't like the idea of wearing glasses to play games. I may just have to wait those 10 years before 3D really becomes worthwhile for me.

  • Ignatius_Cheese #2 7 months ago

    Sony should however drop active shutter glasses and go with passive 3D like LG. That way everyone who has cinema glasses knocking about can join in.

    Also, the current 3D glasses from Sony don't half hurt your head after you've been wearing them for an hour or so...

  • technotica #3 7 months ago

    Glasses free has problems, so has 3d with glasses. Neither is really intuitive and problem free enough to be used seamlessly.

  • Skooch #4 7 months ago

    @ tjtj +1

    Agree completely, if what we are viewing was an actual 3D image then many problems would disappear overnight, things like the viewing angle, annoying glasses etc.

    Technology will eventually solve these problems and I will be ready to adopt it when it happens, but right now I do not want to watch a 3D TV wearing glasses and getting a headache after half an hour. Not going to happen...

  • lcmnick #5 7 months ago

    Sony, just give it up.

  • bad09 #6 7 months ago

    "In October last year a study suggested 80 per cent of gamers were willing to wear 3D glasses to play video games"

    I'm sory but that has got to be outright made up bullshit. Who did this "study" Sony?

  • ianegg #7 7 months ago

    I have a Panasonic 3D plasma arriving this afternoon. The decision was not a light one, but for me active shutter glasses have only JUST got good enough with this years Panasonic plasmas. Autostereoscopy is way way WAY behind, and anyone who spends the tiniest effort looking into how the technology works will see this. The perfect glasses free 3DTV is still in the realms of scifi as far as current technology goes.

  • Murton #8 7 months ago

    Toshiba claim that they can have a glasses free TV out in the next couple of years but looking at the specs of the current prototypes I'm doubtful they'll actually release. The viewing distance and angles will make them a nightmare to market.

    Active shutter really does give the best effect, but I've had the pleasure of seeing some of the second gen passives that are hitting the market now (Panasonic just released one last month and Toshiba have one coming soon, the new LG is also 2nd gen passive when it releases here) and the passives have closed that gap considerably. Passive TVs also have the benefit of glasses being interchangable and very cheap, so everyone can enjoy it.

    @ ignatius - I got used to it after a while, but I know what you mean. I don't get headaches from the 3D effect while wearing the Sony glasses but rather the pressure on the sides of my head from the arms and on my nose because I have to wear them over the top of my regular glasses, they really need to be more adjustable.

  • FireMonkey #9 7 months ago

    @Ignatius_Cheese - "Sony should however drop active shutter glasses and go with passive 3D like LG. That way everyone who has cinema glasses knocking about can join in."

    I kind of agree with you there. However there are still a few different types of Polarised (passive) glasses (left vertical right horizontal, left horizontal right vertical and circular polarised) so you may still have issues.

    Polarised are better for the viewer due to the lightweight, cheap glasses that do not require batteries and the fact that there is no flicker at all unlike active. Circular polarised are of the bunch as it doesn't matter if you are sat straight, lying down or standing on your head the correct image still goes to the correct eye.

    The main problem with Polarised glasses though is that the ghosting between eyes is usually worse than active and the better that gets the less correct the colour and brightness become.

    On the hardware manufactur side the problem with Polarised 3D is that the tech in the TV costs a lot more, which is probably why Sony went for Active to start with as they can start implementing it into all their TV's without really bumping up the cost and it is there for the time the viewer may decide to get the 3D glasses in the future.

    I doubt it will be too long till Sony start pushing polarised 3D TV's more though.

  • Whitster #10 7 months ago

    I've personally just ordered a passive 3D TV, although my main reasons for buying it was that all reviews said that it was a bloody good 2D TV and it was on sale so I figured it was time to upgrade the 6 year old clunker I'm currently using, the 3D is just a bonus from a gaming perspective as theres not enough 3D content elsewhere to make it worthwhile (much like when I first got my HD).

    As for the 3DS, I've never really had any problems, although I don't have much of a commute so do most of my playing it on the sofa when the missus is watching TV which probably helps.

  • asphaltcowboy #11 7 months ago

    Who actually wants 3D? If you answer yes, do you prefer to see 3D versions of films at the cinema instead of 2D? If you answer yes to that... you're a silly billy.

  • FireMonkey #12 7 months ago

    @tjtj - "What I'm trying to say is, it's about time we started working on holographic television."

    The problem with that is image capture. If you have a TV that can show objects from any angle (which is the ideal for holographic TV's) then how do you make sure the film crew and cameras are not in the scene? Will everything have to become rendered (maybe directly from actors motion capture data)?

    Anyway, this might interest you:
    [link url=http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=lAS55_RngoQ
    ]http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=lAS55_RngoQ
    [/link]

    It's a video of a prototype TV from Sony that allows any amount of viewers to see (without glasses) a stereoscopic 3D image from any angle around the TV. A viewer from the back of the TV will see the back of the object and a viewer at the front will see the front of the same object.

    If you don't mind having a cylindrical TV in the middle of your room and only watching rendered footage, then this may be what you are after.

  • Eraysor #13 7 months ago

    3D on the 3DS is fine , it works really well.

    I can't see myself using it for full console games until it gets substantially cheaper though. I've seen a few 3D movies in the cinema and all they really told me was that I'm better saving money and watching them in 2D!

  • StuDevo #14 7 months ago

    They are probably right. But I don't like wearing two sets of glasses its bad in cinema, but I wouldn't want to do it at home.

  • kangarootoo #15 7 months ago

    I know there is still disagreement in gaming circles, but no such disagreement really seems to exist in the wider visual technology circles.

    Yes, glasses free 3D exists. No, that existing tech isn't practical or satisfying in a living room environment. Yes, in some years time technology will get better/get cheaper/get more reliable so that our practical use of it may change (unsurprisingly).

  • bemaniac #16 7 months ago

    3d films at the cinema are more involving than 2d versions. Really well done in the final potter film i saw last week and avatar was fantastic.

  • Darren #17 7 months ago

    I don't care what excuses Sony put out, I cannot see the 3D effect they're selling so it is of zero interest to me. :(

    Until someone comes up with a better technology that doesn't require perfect eyesight then I've no choice but to avoid anything 3D. I saw the recent Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 in 2D for example and thoroughly enjoyed it. I didn't feel I was missing out on anything not having seen it in 3D to be honest. As long as I have that choice then 3D can succeed or fail, it really doesn't bother me which.

    From reading around it seems that interest in 3D is already on the wane due to the poor quality of many movies at the cinema and the poor selection of content on TV so maybe it's days are numbered anyway until someone revives it again in 10-20 years time when technology really has improved so we don't need glasses to view it. I think I can wait.

  • Subdominator #18 7 months ago

    We, the customer, have spoken. And what we want is no glasses-free 3D, no glasses 3D, in fact it's no 3D at all. You (and I mean all hardware manufacturers) keep pushing stuff that we don't want, be it motion controls (remember how the PS3 didn't even have Rumble in the beginning because Sony decided it is not necessary?) or 3D gimmick. We want games. We already know that the best way to experience those games is with a controller. Oh wait, the best control method for a lot of games would be mouse and keyboard. But you don't give us that either, because then you couldn't sell us your $10 controllers for $50 anymore. No matter how good controls with Move or Wiimote or Kinect get - they are always (with the exclusion of stuff like Dance Central, but that could be done with the $10 Vision Cam just as good since Dance Central doesn't even use the 3D part of Kinect) worse than a gamepad. Just like it is with 3D. There are games (platformers, mostly) where the added depth helps to time jumps. But for the most games it is a loss in resolution, a loss in framerate, a loss in brightness and a loss in colors. So why, dear Sony man, why should I want 3D?

  • kangarootoo #19 7 months ago

    @Murton

    "I don't get headaches from the 3D effect while wearing the Sony glasses but rather the pressure on the sides of my head from the arms and on my nose because I have to wear them over the top of my regular glasses"

    Me too, though I don't wear glasses. The friend of mine who actually owns the telly has no such problems though. I think it is literally the shape of my head and position of my ears and nose mean there are pressure points for me that don't exist for him. He has no discomfort at all, and I have to shiftthe arms upwards to relieve the pressure on my nose after 20 odd mins.

    I have to say I have no issue with glasses for 3D, I just have an issue with ill fitting ones (there are more, lighter options for his TV now - he has 3 pairs of the first generation of them, and naturally hasn't spent money on more as he personally has no probs).

  • Jolly_Armadillo #20 7 months ago

    @asphalt

    Yes to both. So I'm a jolly silly billy with a 3D tv.

  • Darren #21 7 months ago

    "According to latest statistics, about 2.5 per cent of HDTVs in the UK are now 3D, and data suggests by 2015 nearly 40 per cent of all new TVs sold will be 3D-enabled."

    I've no doubt that will be true if the *only* HDTVs people can buy are 3D ones but it doesn't mean that people will use the technology. People have only been able to buy HDTVs for a number of years now but I'd wager most people don't use them to watch HD content. I may have no choice but to buy a 3DTV for my next TV but I certainly won't be using it to watch 3D content.

  • Miths #22 7 months ago

    I bought a Samsung PS51D550 (2011 plasma 3DTV) two months ago and I love it for both 2D and 3D. And in addition to native 3D content - which is obviously still limited in volume - I use the usually surprisingly effective built in 2D-3D conversion feature on a near daily basis on HD and DVD video content.

    Wearing the glasses doesn't bother me - even the baseline SSG-3100 Samsung glasses (which retail for around £40) are comfortable and relatively light, and the twice as expensive SSG-3700 that I bought as my second pair, are about as easy to forget I'm wearing as my sunglasses.
    Battery changes (3100) or charging (3700) isn't an issue that's going to bother anyone on a frequent basis, considering you get around 40+ hours on a charge, and it takes a couple of hours to recharge (or seconds to change battery in the 3100).
    You won't need to fiddle with a power button on the SSG-3700 either, as a pressure sensor (or something similar) registers when you put them on and sync automatically with the TV if there's a 3D signal. They obviously also turn off automatically a few minutes after you take them off (even the SSG-3100 do this, although those you do need to manually power on with a button).

    As for the dreaded flickering. The only time I can see visible flickering is with direct, bright sunlight in my field of vision (no issues with indirect daylight or lamps, including with energy saving bulbs) - or fluorescent lights, which is what often makes for such a bad impression in store demonstrations of active 3DTVs (passive 3DTVs reportedly have their own set of issues that can make for problematic store demos though, such as a narrow vertical viewing angle for 3D content, which also makes them unsuitable for high wall mounting).

  • Murton #23 7 months ago

    @ kangarootoo - a friend of mine is the same, he can wear the Sony glasses for as long as he wants as well with no ill-effects.

    I'm just glad that Sony have a single standard for their active sets, that means that when the newer, lighter and hopefully more adjustable glasses do come out I can look at investing in those and have an even better experience with my TV, also granting me a spare pair for when I have people over.

    Incidentally for those interested, the Sly Raccoon Trilogy in 3D looks top drawer, one of the best I've seen so far. Tumble still has the crown for best 3D though, never ceases to amaze every time I switch it on.

  • technotica #24 7 months ago

    I'd want virtual reality headsets before 3d glasses. Make me see the virtual world around me as if I am there.

  • Murton #25 7 months ago

    Anyone tried Vuzix glasses? The ones with the little LCD screens in the "lenses"? They're stereoscopic capable but only 480p, when the original glasses hit the market I was really interested and thought that they'd remove my need for a TV for gaming, but when they failed to go HD I abandoned the idea. But if they can give me what is essentially a portable stereoscopic 3D display they might be worthwhile.

  • cyacomini #26 7 months ago

    "What I'm trying to say is, it's about time we started working on holographic television"

    Holographic television is being worked on as I type this. BBC Click had a demo on a few weeks ago

    [link url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online /9393762.stm
    ]http://ne ws.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/cl...[/link]

    Looks to be in the very early stages and can only be viewed by 1 person at a time using 1-2-1 eye tracking but it's certainly being worked on.

    Holographic TV combined with a 'Kinect' like experience could inch us closer to the star trek style holodeck living rooms. I'll be skipping 3DTV for the time being..

  • Vanmunt #27 7 months ago

    A friend of mine has a top range 3d telly, and its fecking amazing..

  • slippysloppy #28 7 months ago

    I find it amazing that people aren't just against 3D for themselves but against other people actually liking and enjoying it.

    When done right I'm a big fan of 3D, the bigger issue here is crap 3D that adds nothing to the experience. This is not only hurting people's enjoyment of it but the perception of 3D in general.

  • Tricky #29 7 months ago

    Subdominator here's how your post should have read - just 'cos you don't like 3D, doesn't mean everyone agrees with you:

    I, a customer, have spoken. And what I want is no glasses-free 3D, no glasses 3D, in fact it's no 3D at all. You (and I mean all hardware manufacturers) keep pushing stuff that I don't want, be it motion controls (remember how the PS3 didn't even have Rumble in the beginning because Sony decided it is not necessary?) or 3D gimmick. We want games. I already know that the best way to experience those games is with a controller. Oh wait, I think that the best control method for a lot of games would be mouse and keyboard. But you don't give us that either, because then you couldn't sell us your $10 controllers for $50 anymore. No matter how good controls with Move or Wiimote or Kinect get - they are sometimes (with the exclusion of stuff like Dance Central, but that could be done with the $10 Vision Cam just as good since Dance Central doesn't even use the 3D part of Kinect) worse than a gamepad. Just like it is with 3D IMHO. There are games (platformers, mostly) where the added depth helps to time jumps. But for the most games it is a loss in resolution, a loss in framerate, a loss in brightness and a loss in colors, except on the PC where 1080p60 is perfectly possible in 3D on a lot of games if you've got a decent PC. So why, dear Sony man, why should I want 3D?

  • Gearskin #30 7 months ago

    Don't give up. Lets get holograms going.

  • coolbritannia #31 7 months ago

    they're effectively admitting the technology isn't ready to match their ambition yet.

  • RodHull #32 7 months ago

    Question for anyone with a 3D telly: can you lie down and still watch films in 3D? You can't tilt your head in the cinema without the 3D effect vanishing, is it the same with active shutter specs?

  • ruddiger7 #33 7 months ago

    Fuck 3D keep working on Ultra HD (4320p)

  • SvennoJ #34 7 months ago

    Passive glasses might seem a better option then active but it's not quite there yet with the current tech.
    Every other line is polarized on the tv which means you only get half the vertical resolution in 3D. The separation between the lines is also visible if you're not sitting far away.
    It would be especially bad if you use the side by side 3D as input source (eg tv broadcast). You're 1920x1080 image is split to 2 960x1080 images for transmission, then scaled to 1920x540 by the tv.
    Maybe next year we'll see 1920x2160 panels to do full 1080p passive 3D.

  • Hermiod #35 7 months ago

    My vision is crap so I have to wear glasses to play games anyway. An extra pair on top doesn't bother me.

  • Gaol #36 7 months ago

    The 3D on the 3DS isn't 'horrible', it works brilliantly, for me anyway. I can view it for hours with no issues and mostly complaints seemt to come from those who haven't spent extended time with the device.

    Of course, it's less impressive in what it can accomplish than glasses 3D, and the technology is clearly only suitable for small devices, but it's a great way to lend videogame visuals more 'pop'. It's a fine achievement for what is, after all, a handheld toy.

  • SvennoJ #37 7 months ago

    @Rodhull. It won't work unless you put the tv sideways too. The stereoscopic effect is set for horizontal separation of your eyes, not vertical.

  • FireMonkey #38 7 months ago

    @tjtj - "I remembering hearing that apparently you can use Kinect to capture 3D scenes"

    Yeah it can like this:
    [link url=http://www.geek.com/art icles/geek-cetera/kinect-hacked-to-make-uav-quadrocopter-201 10331/
    ]http://ww w.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera...[/link]

    Capturing a 3D scene is not the hard part, capturing a 3D scene that allows viewing from 'any' angle is.
    How can you film an object from all angles? You can get a single 3d view from 1 angle quite easy by having 2 cameras. So using 3 cameras you can get 2 different views. To get a full 360 view you would need a big ring of cameras. But then the cameras would see the other cameras that are opposite and so break the illusion.

  • MavSkipper #39 7 months ago

    Bionic contact lenses. Nuff said.

  • slippysloppy #40 7 months ago

    @tjtj Games companies aren't forcing 3D. Hollywood can try and force it on us but producing too many films with pointless 3D will turn people off. TV manufactureres are sort of forcing it on us, as it becomes the standard for all TV sets, but then it's up to us if we want to use these features.

    I myself have a HD 3D projector and the results are excellent, when done right. Tron Legacy (filmed using 3D cameras) looks fantastic 3D but for every Tron or Avatar there's a dozen Clash of the Titans or Piranhas, sporting dodgy post conversion 3D effects.

    As for games, and this really is why we're here, if one takes advantage of 3D tech then great, it's costs me no more for the game and those who can't or don't want it have the choice not to. Personally I can't think of a better game than Uncharted to be in 3D and can't wait for that one.

  • Rodster #41 7 months ago

    Somehow i'm not buying into Sony defending it's own 3D glasses technology.

  • natureboy #42 7 months ago

    As long as it is an option. I still think every major player need to sit down at the table, put their heads together and crack this problem. Because it will take more than 10yrs before a viable product is established. At the moment we have not got there yet as everyone wants to get there first. I am more than happy with the current HD and future HD technologies.

  • alimokrane #43 7 months ago

    Let's hope someone manages to work out those issues. Right now, I am staying clear of 3D gaming to be honest.

  • Murton #44 7 months ago

    Q: can you lie down and still watch films in 3D? You can't tilt your head in the cinema without the 3D effect vanishing, is it the same with active shutter specs?

    A: yes and no. It depends on the TV. Sony 3DTVs come with a little sensor bar that you place with your TV and this syncs with the glasses and the viewing angles are taken from the bar rather than the screen. In theory as long as the glasses and the sensor bar have a direct line of sight you should see the effect, but much like any other stereoscopic 3D effect you really need to be in the sweet spot to get the most out of it. The key benefit of the of the sensor bar approach rather than having it built into the TV is that if you intend to lie down you can change the position of the sensor to better suit your physical location and lessen the disruption that would usually occur by not being sat in the optimum location for the TV. Though newer TVs now come with multiple sensors to give a better range of angles with less effort for the user.

    Must admit that I've never tried to lie down while using my 3D TV as it's mostly used for games I'm either sitting or if I'm playing KZ3 with my sharpshooter, standing.

  • funkateer #45 7 months ago

    "Question for anyone with a 3D telly: can you lie down and still watch films in 3D? You can't tilt your head in the cinema without the 3D effect vanishing, is it the same with active shutter specs? "

    No, that's the typical limitation of passive polarized glasses found in cinema and passive 3D TV's.
    Which is why I prefer active shutter glasses.

  • berelain #46 7 months ago

    By now, I've seen enough 3D content - watched films in 3D at the cinema, tried several 3D PS3 games at the Eurogamer Expo, and own a 3DS - to say that it does absolutely nothing for my enjoyment of a film or game in the slightest.

    In the cinema, you currently have to sacrifice picture quality for 3D, which is something I'd rather not do. At home, you're stuck wearing stupid looking glasses just to watch the TV, and given that I already wear glasses and wearing two pairs at once is a) uncomfortable and b) just stupid, that's not something I'm up for either. Plus, we have a lot of friends come round. If they all wanted to watch a 3D film they'd each have to have a pair of glasses, which would be expensive, and then we'd all look daft.

    And then there's the 3DS, which does its glasses-free 3D remarkably well, but the 3D adds so little to the games it barely seems worth it. Look! There's some extra depth to the landscapes in Zelda! Wow. Doesn't make it a better game though, does it? Look! 3D cars and tracks in Ridge Racer 3D! Wow. But it plays every bit as well with the 3D turned off, doesn't it?

    Plus, as has been said before, current consoles can't even ouput modern games at 1080p with stable framerates. Asking them to do it twice just to add a tiny bit of completely unnecessary depth seems ridiculous to me.

  • geeza2020 #47 7 months ago

    At the moment, its hard for me to word my opinion on 3d without sounding like a pauper, but If I have to spend say, £500-£800 on a 3d enabled telly, I really dont think its good enough for it to ever give me headaches after an hour's viewing. And when I hear about people getting them within 30 mins of watching a 3d telly, it makes me think is it really worth spending hundreds of pounds on a device that could cause me severe pain within half an hour of turning it on? Nope.

  • FireMonkey #48 7 months ago

    @RodHull - "Question for anyone with a 3D telly: can you lie down and still watch films in 3D? You can't tilt your head in the cinema without the 3D effect vanishing, is it the same with active shutter specs?"

    With some types yes.

    @Funkateer - No, that's the typical limitation of passive polarized glasses found in cinema and passive 3D TV's.
    Which is why I prefer active shutter glasses."

    Not always true. Yes it is true with the sort in cinema (as why would you lie down in the cinema), but for home TV's you want to be getting yourself a circular polarised screen and glasses.

    Linear polarisation basically works by light wavelengths being sent out horizontally for one eye and vertically for the other. The glasses then block the horizontal or vertical wavelengths of light so that the correct eye only gets the correct light.

    Circular polarised light can be polarised clockwise or counter-clockwise and filtered in the same way.

    http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarized_3... and as clockwise or counter-clockwise is the same no matter what angle your head, then you can tilt your head.

    The problem with lying down (with both active and passive systems) though is that the 3D image will go a bit screwy as it was shot from 2 lenses side by side. If you are laying down your left and right eye are actually in the same position horizontally but your left eye will be getting an image from further left then the right eye. Does that make sense?

  • asphaltcowboy #49 7 months ago

    Wow, at least 10 people want 3D gaming... or are offended by the phrase "silly billy". Really people, do you really want gaming in 3D? Really?

  • FireMonkey #50 7 months ago

    @Geeza2020 - "And when I hear about people getting them within 30 mins of watching a 3d telly"

    To be honest with you, I haven't heard many people who own a 3D TV actually complaining about that. Probably about the same amount that I used to hear complaining about head aches using CRT displays for a long period.

    I wouldn't worry about buying a TV specifically for 3D either. The added cost of 3D to the consumer is minimal if anything now. When / if you look at upgrading your TV you may as well get a 3D TV (if you even have the choice not to by then) as it won't cost any more than the same quality TV without 3D (if you are going for an Active Shutter one that is Polarised will cost a fair bit more)
    Edited by 1 at 22/07/11 @ 16:07

  • FireMonkey #51 7 months ago

    @asphaltcowboy - "Really people, do you really want gaming in 3D? Really?"

    Yes. Well I do anyway. In the right games and done in the right way it really adds the to immersion of the game.
    I just can't wait for VR to make a proper comeback.

    I negged you before because you were asking us our opinions and then insulting us for them. Even is "silly billy" isn't actually much of an insult it is quite condescending and we should all be allowed our own opinions?
    Edited by 1 at 22/07/11 @ 16:30

  • Gurgeh #52 7 months ago

    Philips had a glasses-free 3D TV ready to ship this year but postponed it because 3D TV sets aren't selling as well as they hoped. The number of 3D capable sets will rise with time simply because it will be practically impossible to buy a TV without 3D in a couple of years. Maybe by that time there will be enough decent content to make the cost worthwhile.

  • grussbarbar #53 7 months ago

    I wear glasses and I must say I don't have a problem wearing the Panasonic active shutter glasses over them. They're pretty light and fit right over my glasses. They do start to hurt my nose a bit after 3 hours or so, but apart from that, for me, they're great. =)


    @bad09 and tjtj

    While I can't really judge the study Eurogamer mentions (not having bought the full report myself, of course), it does seem to be a really commercial and non-independent study.
    http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-1...
    http://www.mtbs3d.com /why.shtml
    http://www.mt bs3d.com/methodology.shtml

    I'm guessing the 80% figure is skewed and scientifically worthless due to the fact that the researchers promoted the survey on 3D interest websites like iZ3D Inc and Meant to be Seen.

    (And again, Eurogamer: please be critical when reporting on research done. It's very easy to do research in a wrong way or to draw the wrong conclusions from research and it's imperative to stay critical as a reporter. Don't just parrot a press release. If you're not careful, you could be parroting inaccurate or even false information, turning Eurogamer into a marketing tool instead of a news outlet. Unless you guys bought the full report and judged it scientifically sound of course.)

    (Edits for spelling errors and broken links)
    Edited by 3 at 22/07/11 @ 16:42

  • Subquest #54 7 months ago

    getting a headache after half an hour - lots of people say this.

    But often it's not the glasses that cause this, it's the 3D content itself, and the problem would occur with or without glasses. The problem is where the content requires your eyes to be constantly adjusting themselves, particularly in fast action sequences - often the content asks too much of the eye, to be needing to shift focus too quickly to cope - the muscles get tired and hence the headaches. I'm a 3D vision convert on PC, and the games it works the best on are slow paced games - Civ 5, Portal 2, Oblivion and top down games like Dungeon Siege 3, Titan Quest. Games such as Crysis 2 and Bulletstorm, whilst looking amazing, they ask too much of the users eyes, there's just too much going on and yes headaches occur after 30 minutes.

    EDIT: Legendary director Werner Herzog talking with Mayo/Kermode about 3D (Skip to around 04:30 for the reason you've been getting headaches when watching 3D movies)
    Edited by 1 at 22/07/11 @ 17:04

  • AdamAsunder #55 7 months ago

    2.5% of tvs out there are 3d?

    That boom didn't really work out did it?

    I'm not overly fussed with 3d but if I get a new TV I'll get a 3d enabled one just because I might as well if all tvs are going to end up with it enabled. However I'm more fussed on clarity and I'm a little bothered that this soon after selling HD to everyone they're trying to get people to buy another TV. This equipment, for most people (i.e. mainstream) are a once every 5 years purchase minimum. My mum is an xfactor watching, Pete Andre following mainstreamer and she's still got a CRT.

    Trying to shorten the gap between purchases was always going to fail, especially for what has become such a contentious feature. All it's doing is making people suspicious that when they buy this new thing there's going to be another new TV in the near future. The fact that Sony have made this statement in defense of their tech as opposed to 'glasses free' proves my point that we're already looking ahead.

    edit: I will say that I have yet to see a 3d tv yet, my only experience so far is Avatar in the cinema. My reticence in bothering with 3d may have something to do with the fact that I thought the film was beyond awful.
    Edited by 1 at 22/07/11 @ 16:53

  • DVR #56 7 months ago

    @tjtj: Not sure if anyone else has pointed you here, but for what it's worth real holographic tv is being worked on now. That is an old article from BBC's Click which shows a working holographic tv being developed for a late projected launch in 2012.

    edited for grammar
    Edited by 1 at 22/07/11 @ 17:50

  • patch #57 7 months ago

    Pretty soon all you'll be able to get is 3D TVs for the same price as equivalent 2D sets today, then we'll have to find something else to moan about.

  • RodHull #58 7 months ago

    So I can't lie down and watch stuff in 3D? But I like lying down.....

  • DVR #59 7 months ago

    @patch, how's about having to pay for a technology we'll never use?

  • Chufty #60 7 months ago

    FireMonkey: +1million. People need to think a little before assuming fully blown glasses-free TV is just around the corner.

    You cannot film something from all angles. It's simply impossible, and any attempt to do so is way, way way in the future and breaks the basic laws of physics. This means 'holographic' screens or screens which recreate a 3D image in front of you, which you can move around and see from different angles, is the stuff of Star Trek grade sci-fi.

    At least, not with live action images. Realtime CGI, however, is a different story. And realtime CGI = games.

    Even that is not the same as stereoscopic 3D though. Stereoscopy adds distance that isn't really there, in theory to an infinite vanishing point. Some sort of 3D 'dolls-house' type display would only give you as much depth as the size of the box.

  • FireMonkey #61 7 months ago

    @DVR - As nice as that holographic TV seems, it still has the same viewpoint problem in that you need to sit in the sweet spot to see anything.

  • PaulieWaulie #62 7 months ago

    Post deleted at 14:23:40 06-01-2012

  • DVR #63 7 months ago

    @Firemonkey: It uses tracking technology to track the viewer's eyes and project the interference pattern accordingly. In theory this can be used to project the interference pattern in any direction negating the "sweet spot". In fact that is pretty much what that prototype does now, but does so for multiple viewers rather than a single viewer. The fact still remains though, that you cannot view the holographic image say from the rear, however, this also makes the content easy to film as it means that regular stereoscopic cameras can be used. As I see it, the biggest hurdle that the developer faces is that of funding, so many big companies have invested so much money on current 3d tech, that they will want to recover that investment before investing in new tech, effectively stymieing alternative technologies.

  • FireMonkey #64 7 months ago

    @DVR - " It uses tracking technology to track the viewer's eyes and project the interference pattern accordingly"

    I missed that bit at the end. There is no reason why that can't happen with standard 3DTV's either though.

    The best thing for me about that tech is that your eyes actually focus where the object should be rather than always on the screen and so reducing / eliminating eye-strain. Very interesting.

    Check this out: http://ww w.microsoft.com/showcase/en/us/...
    It's MS's approach to eye tracking stereo displays (which can also potentially handle multiple viewers). Starting at about 4.00 (but the rest of it before is really interesting too)

    Edit: Fixed the link
    Edited by 6 at 22/07/11 @ 20:10

  • ronuds #65 7 months ago

    I saw Transformers 3 in 3D and it still sucked.

  • Subdominator #66 7 months ago

    @Tricky: No, it's we. It's all in the numbers. 3D Bluray sales are at 3.5 million. Of which half accounts for Blurays given away for free with a 3DTV. 3D revenue for movies is down yoy by 45 %, the first movies are already starting to return to more 2D screens. Being 3D gave no game a sales boost. The 3D boom is over, it won't rebound until Avatar 2 is out. And even then it will be shortlived because the cons outway the pros. I was a sucker for 3D at one time, but even back then it was a short term trend (PC gaming in the 90s, with games like Descent getting the shutter glasses treatment). Before Avatar Nvidia tried to sell those shutter glasses again. They failed. And then the TV producers entered the market. Why? Because they just sold you an HDTV and they know that people buy a new TV every 12 years (cause that's the average lifetime of a TV). The only way to increase sales is by adding new features and pretending that you need it. And that's where they're wrong. Nobody needs 3D. In fact everything looks better in 2D. Is 3D more interesting and amazing? Maybe. But it lack image quality. Having seen Avatar in 3D twice and now the 2D Bluray I have to say the 2D version is by far the best. It's much more vivid. And it's less distracting, cause 3D and depth of field don't work very well.

  • CamberGreber #67 7 months ago

    I tryed the Passive LG glasses at the store.

    It was good and Provided a brighter picture and no crosstalk.

    Very simular to the theater exsperience except....
    ... The resolution is cut in half vertically.

    This was not a obvious as you would think probably because both eyes share simular image elements and there probably is a small temperal resolution increase of about 15 percent or more.

    But if your looking for full 1080p for each eye then you have to wait till the passive tvs have twice the vertical resolution 1980x2160p.

    When that happens I am totally in.

  • man.the.king #68 7 months ago

    @ianegg

    "Autostereoscopy is way way WAY behind, and anyone who spends the tiniest effort looking into how the technology works will see this."

    Indeed. From what I understand, Autostereoscopy demands that the TV be able to recognize the number of viewers, and transmit separate images for each viewer without inhibiting the other viewers' perspectives, and track if the viewers eyes move. That seems to just demand that TVs have an insane amount of processing power as well.

    The only other option I can see (with my limited technical knowledge) is holographic televisions.

    Both options seem pretty much in their infancy right now. And it will probably be a fair number of years before we have well-working commercial models of either.

    Any technology has to go through growing pains to reach where it's at. 3D has to go through similar ups-and-downs as well, until we reach the "final perfect 3D on the distant horizon" many people seem to be waiting for.

    I for one don't want to wait a decade or more just to enjoy current 3D movies and games.
    Edited by 1 at 22/07/11 @ 22:50

  • man.the.king #69 7 months ago

    @FireMonkey

    "Capturing a 3D scene is not the hard part, capturing a 3D scene that allows viewing from 'any' angle is.
    How can you film an object from all angles? You can get a single 3d view from 1 angle quite easy by having 2 cameras. So using 3 cameras you can get 2 different views. To get a full 360 view you would need a big ring of cameras. But then the cameras would see the other cameras that are opposite and so break the illusion. "

    It would probably have to be an overhead "camera" of sorts that captures information like objects, their shapes, size, colors, distance between objects, movement, etc and then translate that to visible images that can be interpreted by corresponding hardware from multiple angles.

    /secretly hopes James Cameron is reading this and implements it for Avatar 3 :) . A holographic cinema experience would be awesome.
    Edited by 1 at 22/07/11 @ 22:34

  • alcides #70 7 months ago

    There's also inherent problems with viewing a three dimensional image on a flat screen anyway, as it confuses your vision, focusing on something that is simultaneously close and far away.

    does seeing your reflection in a mirror confuse you?

  • denyason #71 7 months ago

    once you go 3d, 2d is just not good enough. i have seen some limited but good 3d movies where you can't fail to be amazed. no longer does a overhanging rock feel so 'there' and threatening. you don't watch 3d 24/7 but when you watch a movie it makes all the difference. those that don't appreciate the 3d don't actually have these tv's because of there current extortionate prices. glasses free 3d i feel is impossible to replicate to a fully user friendly interface. what sony needs to do is improve those glasses.

  • super_monty #72 7 months ago

    I disagree I have a choice to watch a movie today in 2d or 3d, I am choosing 2d and I know many more people who have got over the 3d fad.

    I also don't want to wear glasses at home to play a 3d game with dodgy frame rates.

  • dom6918 #73 7 months ago

    Samsung 55 inch real3d tvs 2012 - passive sets with full 3d hd resolution = gamechanger

  • sega #74 7 months ago

    With regards to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - I couldn't notice the 3D at all. Avatar and Tron Legacy, on the other hand, looked fantastic. It seems to be very hit and miss - I'm pro 3D in some cases but the inconsistancy in quality puts me off. I think poor 3D will be the death of it - if you don't notice a significant change in image why invest?

  • Murton #75 7 months ago

    Really don't get why people hate on the glasses. Are you really so insecure that you will forsake the benefits of 3D because you have to wear some glasses in your own home where nobody is going to see you anyway?

    If so, then I genuinely pity you, you're missing out on something really good and for a really, really stupid reason.
    Edited by 2 at 23/07/11 @ 20:34

  • Rack #76 7 months ago

    It's not about feeling self conscious, it's just messing around with multiple sets of glasses for everyone is a faff. It's something I'd be happy to do for fullscreen splitscreen on one screen because that's an awesome advantage, but for 3d? Eh, not worth it.

  • napalm68 #77 7 months ago

    Seriously, why isn't there just more options with glasses? It is just crap. Aside from the fact people have different heads, and some people wear glasses, I can't take the obnoxious loss of peripheral vision. I hate being able to see the frames at the side of my vision. I won't wear sunglasses like that so damned if I'll wear 3d glasses like that. You think third part manufacturers, or even glasses frame manufacturers would step up. The current ones are like taping a frigging Viewmaster(tm) to your face.

  • Hamhock #78 7 months ago

    64 position glasses-free screens?

    [link url=http: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzRq7GhBLRQ&NR=1
    ]http://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzRq7GhBL...[/link]

  • markmitt #79 7 months ago

    I have a 3D TV, and to be honest I am not blown away by it at all. So far, all of the films that I have watched on it have had a really poor 3d effect. I played KZ3 (great game), but due to the technical constraints compared to non 3d viewing, I didn't enjoy the 3d. Wipeout is absolutely plagued with image artifacts whilst in 3d mode, hence making it very difficult to play. GT5 is ok in 3d, but nothing amazing. And so far, the best example of 3d STILL on Ps3 is Stardust HD... If all other titles played as well as this is 3d, we'd all be on to a winner.

  • SteelPriest #80 7 months ago

    3d contact lenses and i'm in...

  • NeoTechni #81 7 months ago

    @Subdominator: No, it's just you.

    I do want 3D gaming. I don't want passive glasses cause they cut the resolution in half. And auto-stereo like the 3DS simply sucks. I don't get the people claiming it works well, it works horribly. The SLIGHTEST movement and it stops working. And holography isnt coming any time soon.

  • man.the.king #82 7 months ago

    @markmitt

    "And so far, the best example of 3d STILL on Ps3 is Stardust HD... If all other titles played as well as this is 3d, we'd all be on to a winner."

    Try Motorstorm Apocalypse. It's the one of the best implementations of stereoscopic 3D I have ever seen, and that includes both movies and games.

  • Madder-Max #83 7 months ago

    the 3d projector in Minority report was pretty rough and i doubt we'll even see stuff that good for 20 years or so. (glasses free).