Sony shows off 3D LittleBigPlanet

By Richard Leadbetter Published 19 January, 2010

New technology makes planes simple.

Sony has revealed a stereoscopic 3D version of hit PS3 game LittleBigPlanet .

A video demonstration was shown at MotorStorm developer Evolution Studios yesterday, along with a range of other developmental demos. Attendees enjoyed two playable samplers in the form of the magnificent Super Stardust HD and a 3D demo of Motorstorm: Pacific Rift.

LittleBigPlanet and Gran Turismo 5 were the pick of the non-playable demos, according to Eurogamer technoblacksmith Rich Leadbetter. "The stereoscopic 3D has afforded the parallax scrolling landscapes a phenomenal sense of depth," he said.

"In the original LittleBigPlanet there can be an element of confusion about which of the game's platforms 'live' on which of the three planes of depth. Stereoscopic 3D puts an end to that, ensuring each of the parallax elements occupies its own distinct area within the 3D space." This, reckons Leadbetter, is a cool example of how the move to 3D technology does represent genuine gameplay advantages.

Another eye-catching part of the demo was the starting sequence, which showed Sackboy change from 2D to 3D as he put on his own 3D glasses.

Sony refuses to be drawn on exact games that will be released with its forthcoming range of 3DTVs, and won't commit to a timeline either. However, the screens themselves along with two PS3 system updates (one for 3D movies, the other for games) have been given tentative summer release dates.

More details on the Sony presentation, including an in-depth tech discussion with lead members of the development team, will appear on Digital Foundry later this week.

Picture of Richard.

About Richard Leadbetter

Rich has been a games journalist since the days of 16-bit and specialises in technical analysis. Commonly known around Eurogamer as the Blacksmith of the Future.

Read more articles from Richard by visiting the Richard Leadbetter archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (94) 2 years ago

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

  • M4RV #1 2 years ago

    Why so s... Errrr... in such a hurry...?!?!

    Edited by 1 at 19/01/10 @ 12:43

  • The_Programmer #2 2 years ago

    So how many people are just going to dump their new HDTV's & buy a new 3D TV? 3D isn't going to happen for me unless you don't have to wear these stupid glasses.

  • fiery_jackass #3 2 years ago

    3D isn't going to happen with this technology. It just isn't. Sony et al should just accept a couple of lean years on the HDTV adoption cycle and launch new tech when it's ready.

  • Skurmedel #4 2 years ago

    Sony's obviously doing this so they can sell their own 3DTVs... still feels very early when many people made the switch to HDTV not long ago.

  • kangarootoo #5 2 years ago

    @The_Programmer

    Plenty of people wear glasses every time they play games. I'm really not sure it is the barrier that people suggest.

    @Raajaa

    There are types of 3D TV that don't require glasses. You have to sit in one of several "correct spots" for them to work right though I believe.

  • kangarootoo #6 2 years ago

    On a geeneral note, every new technology seems new and "too early" when people first start to trail blaze it.

    Its not possible to only release something for the first time when it is established, is it?

  • zuljin #7 2 years ago

    @The_Programmer
    How many people dumped their CRTs when plasma and LCDs came out? A select few that follow tech trends. Most people bought theirs when their old CRT crapped out. So if it is going to be a long and drawn out process trying to get a substantial number of people to buy it, might as well make a move then right?

  • M_of_the_sys #8 2 years ago

    Sunny days will never take off with me. It means I have to wear stupid shades. Argh... damn this mortal body of mine!

  • Psychotext #9 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo: This tech is ancient, the problem isn't that it's too early, the problem is that there's next to no organic demand for it and TV manufacturers are desperately trying to force it down our throats to prop up their bottom line.

  • FutureDave #10 2 years ago

    I'll buy a 3D TV this year. It's been 6 years since my first HDTV, and I'm looking forward to 3D. The technology works, it looks great, I'm all for it.

  • tomkuryakin #11 2 years ago

    Just goes to show that LBP should have been 2D to begin with, rather than have all this "planes" nonsense.
    Edited by 1 at 19/01/10 @ 13:08

  • woodyrulesok #12 2 years ago

    @zuljin
    my experience of technology over the last 5-10 years is that it's getting worse.
    I had my old crt for about 15 years and it was still good (just small), most new stuff I have had has lasted about 2 years tops. I must have been through about 5 dvd players.
    I'm sure they make them so they don't last on purpose.
    Anyway when my current Sammy LCD breaks I might look into getting a 3d tv.

  • kangarootoo #13 2 years ago

    @Psychotext

    But if we keep saying that, it will never become commonplace.

    A fact proven many times before is that if you wait for demand for a brand new product to come into being, you will wait forever. The way it has always been is one company bringsout a new product "too early", this starts to generate interest, which slowly tusn into demand, the first company then cleans up for a while, till eventually new companies come into play to fulfill the now rampant demand, and you end up with a stable market.

    There is nothing going here that we have not seen before with some other bit of tech in the past.

  • Anthony_UK #14 2 years ago

    Admitedly i don't know a great deal about how this works, or why the sudden demand? if any?

    But if they can like someone said release TV's that produce the 3D effect without the glasses, then great. Next time I update my HDTV I might consider one. If not I won't, and I really don't see how this could possibly take off, its far to gimicky!

    Avatar for example, i'd much rather have a bright vivid 1080p picture, than some slightly darkened, slightly hit and miss 3D effect!

    3D Meh!

  • BartonFink #15 2 years ago

    Clearly the main reason Sony are so keen to push 3D is to help sales of their own 3DTVs. Same as they did with Blu-ray in the PS3. Meh!!!

  • Mono_X #16 2 years ago

    @The_Programmer

    I think the majority of households don't have HDTV, so it's possible that they might 'leapfrog' HD and go straight to 3D (like people leapfrogged mini-disc and went straight to MP3). However I don't think that's quite likely or that simple.
    I do have 2 pals who have both bought HDTVs in the last 12 months, - possible ouch for them! Luckily I've resisted the lure of HDTV... for now.

    Agree about the glasses though - especially since I already wear spectacles!

  • Arwin #17 2 years ago

    I for one welcome our 3D overlords with open arms (and eyes). And combined with the Wand I think it will be even more awesome, as then you can interact with a 3D environment with a proper 3D interface. Could be pretty awesome imho.

    I don't think I'll be able to afford a 3D tv right away though - typically I'll set myself a price barrier, say 1000 euros, and as soon as a TV that meets my requirements hits that price, I'll move in. I did that with our HD Ready tv too. That means the LCD can move into the bedroom.

    Now the question will be what are the requirements? Obviously I'll first want to test how the shutter glasses (presuming that's the technology we'll see first) work, and if there is any trade-off for 2D tv at all, or whether it will be a significant step up from my current HD Ready set instead (presumably will have at least twice the framerate I have now, it will have Full HD, it will have much higher contrast ratios, etc., so the improvements could be quite considerable for me).

    But I really love that this is coming, and it's great timing together with the new 3D motion controllers that are (and have been in the case of Motion+) coming out.

  • andijames #18 2 years ago

    Just out of interest why do you need a new TV to make 3DTV work correctly? Is it something to do with the picture frequency (120mhz?) or does it actually need kind of dual projection to manifest as 3D?

    I'm just a bit behind on how it works :)

    Edit - Better anglais
    Edited by 1 at 19/01/10 @ 13:22

  • parablax #19 2 years ago

    @Raajaa - that is incorrect. There is some 3d tv tech using slanted lcd's that fire dependent on depth detail. These lcds sit just behind the flat tv screen.

  • drxym #20 2 years ago

    3D standards are so nascent that people would have to be mad to jump in any time soon for a handful of movies and games. Any 3D TV (and the kit attached to it) is bound to be half baked and cost a fortune. Better to wait a few years when 3D functionality becomes a standard and reliable feature of mid-range TVs and blu ray players.

  • fiery_jackass #21 2 years ago

    >Kangarootoo: A fact proven many times before is that if you wait for demand for a brand new product to come into being, you will wait forever.

    well, yes, but that's not a Golden Rule to apply to all technologies. I don't need 5 years of electronic retail and 10 in IT to draw a long list of technologies and products that were foisted onto the market to keep financial projections afloat despite not having recognisable demand and/or fully-realised benefits (as opposed to pure tech). Maybe I'm on the wrong side of the enthusiasm/pessimism spectrum, but at least it's the cheaper end.

  • gamingdave #22 2 years ago

    In a few years time chances are any new TV will be 3D capable. Just like now (nearly) all LCD TVs are at least HD Ready. It wont be a matter of choice, but anyone buying a new set will be buying a 3D capable (with glasses) set.

    The games industry is pushing it this year. The movie industry is pushing it this year. Sky are pushing it this year. Its coming like it or not.

  • citizenHUNTER #23 2 years ago

    Some peoples stubborn negativity towards this is starting to grate a little bit.

    For the extra dimension in gameplay which makes any game you play far more absorbing I think most people won't mind wearing some specs for a bit. It's not going to be commonplace for a long time but at least let those who want to get a taste of the future jump in a little early. Gran Turismo is probably the best example. For anyone who's gone so far as to buy a wheel and especially a proper gaming seat to attach it to the prospect of 3D GT is not a gimmick, it's a definite leap toward intensely greater realism. I'm sure the hardcore early adopters will want to jump aboard.

    Secondly the cost is not going to be so prohibitive as people expect. 3D televisions aren't all that different, it's just that they can refresh an image much quicker, the cost will be like the premium you might pay for a good set next to a shite one out of ASDA. It's not going to be thousands more like some people are assuming. The Samsung 22inch monitor made for 3D is about £230 or something in that region, the same is my similarly specced tho non 3D Samsung monitored cost me new a couple of years ago.

    Instead of bashing I wish people could see how awesome this is going to be. Not a gimmick and a definite feature all future consoles are going to come compatible with. I look forward to it even though I know I probably won't get a taste of it myself for 2 or 3 years from now.
    Edited by 1 at 19/01/10 @ 13:38

  • kangarootoo #24 2 years ago

    @BartonFink

    I honestly don't give a hoot why any company releases a new product.

    Do I know why Walkers got into the potato crisp business? Do I know why Caterpillar started making footwear as well as haulage equipment? Do I know why Eurogamer set up their website?

    No, I really don't care.

    I'm only interested in whether their products are good for me as a customer.


    "Some peoples stubborn negativity towards this is starting to grate a little bit."

    I hear that. I bet the invention of the normal CRT telly all those years ago was subject to wireless fans with the same attitude (acting like they were different from all those people that had come over thousands of years before them that dismissed new stuff as unecessary or wrong).

  • kangarootoo #25 2 years ago

    @fiery_jackass

    Well, I'm generalising and of course ignoring the products that failed (I dispute whether being "too early" was always the problem with failed technologies though).

    And your "the cheaper end of the enthusiasm/pessimism spectrum" closer made me chuckle :)

  • betahoven #26 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:36:16 17-12-2011

  • kangarootoo #27 2 years ago

    @squarejawhero

    Yeah, that is the type of TV. I believe you have to sit in the right spot so that the right image hits each eye, but its relatively generous. I believe they project alternate images across the whole viewing field, so there are loads of places you can sit. You just need to shuffle a few inches either way to "line up".

    I honestly can't say whether I keep my head still or not when gaming or watching films, so I can't really suppose whether that would be an issue.

  • kangarootoo #28 2 years ago

    Talking of price, here is some food for thought.

    As has been mentioned, the tech in use in cinemas is essentially ancient (I first experienced it about 15 years ago). The reason it took so long to take off was the cost. Even 5 years ago there were only a few cinemas that could show 3D films. Now, suddenly, everywhere seems to have at least 1 3D supporting screen.

    The costs for home sets might be prohibitive today, but the savings made elsewhere in the business over all those years mean that could change extremely quickly. We could literally see the rpice of 3D TVs halve 2 years after the first ones hit the market.

    Now imagine what tits Sony and all other interested parties would feel like if that price cut suddenly came and they had no content to provide to the now eager market? They need to start doing all this stuff now, so that when a few 3D TVs start selling over the next few years, they have already got their production costs down to a manageable level.

    None of the companies involved in this initiative are green. They wouldn't be SO wrong as posters here seem to think they are. Perhaps said posters just don't understand the 3D TV business as well as one of the largest TV makers on the planet?... just a thought.

  • bodypopper #29 2 years ago

    Can't see people dumping their current set just to get a 3D one but for those who do want a new TV, a lot of 3D-ready TVs will have Freeview HD tuners, web TV etc. I think the combination of plus points will mean that soon having 3D in a TV becomes one of a number of nice bonuses rather just a sole reason for buying.

  • kangarootoo #30 2 years ago

    @bodypopper

    Absolutely. I figure that in a few years time the extra cost of equipping a TV will be so low it won't be worth doing. Right now loads of TVs have Freeview built in, as its just too cheap not to bother including it. One day all new TVs will support 3D, 'cos it won't be worth the pityful saving not to include it.

  • BabyJesus #31 2 years ago

    I'm sick of 3D already.

    Die you technogeek 3d babble dieeeee damn you.

    Seriously though, holodecks or no dice.

  • Mkwone #32 2 years ago

    People who say 3d won't catch up i feel are wrong. There's much more emphasis on it now, just look around every week there's new storys and articles about 3D improvments and announcements. It's not if 3d will make it but when.

  • Collymilad #33 2 years ago

    "Some peoples stubborn negativity towards this is starting to grate a little bit."

    Sorry but I think people have a right to be slightly negative. All we heard for years was HDTV HDTV HDTV HDTV constantly, then a year or two after they get to a reasonable price point it's onto 3D. No way I'm buying yet another new TV right now.

    Also, let's face it the only reason 3D is being pushed so hard in cinemas at least is because they are desperately trying to find a reason to get people to actually go to the cinema and not just pirate.

  • fiery_jackass #34 2 years ago

    >Perhaps said posters just don't understand the 3D TV business as well as one of the largest TV makers on the planet?

    although it's the gaming site's equivalent of Hitlering the thread, the obvious counter to the above is Nintendo deciding to unleash the virtual boy.

    I'm not disputing the notion that the future is 3D shaped, I just don't think that *this* technology is the correct answer that the fervent negative voters think it is. I'm mindful of how, in a relatively short time selling electronics, I saw: widescreen "lifestyle" TVs pushed as the future onto a largely uncomprehending public with no broadcast support; WAP foisted on us as the future when it was never more than a pitiful stop-gap; fucking Apple Newtons pushed as the future of PDAs; APS cameras heavily promoted by a panicking Kodak etc etc. Even HDTV was forced heavily onto the market without, I'd argue, an infrastructure fit to support it, broadcast-wise. I mean Jesus. Sky struggles to maintain a 720p service, there's plenty of exploration space left in the current offering to allow 3D to mature as a proposition for the home.

  • BabyJesus #35 2 years ago

    @Mwkone there has always been a huge thing about 3d whenever it's popped up, whether you want to say it's more a big deal now than it was in the previous resurgences is entirely subjective.

    Also just because TV makers are pushing something doesn't mean it will work out.

  • kangarootoo #36 2 years ago

    @Collymilad

    I don't think they expect you to buy a 3D TV right now though. You clearly aren't an early adopter, instead you wait for the prices to fall a bit (I'm exactly the same). If you or I get a 3D TV, it will be years from now when the prices have come down. The people that will buy 3D TVs in the next few years will be the same people that bought an HDTV years before you or me did, i.e. early adopters.


    "Also, let's face it the only reason 3D is being pushed so hard in cinemas at least is because they are desperately trying to find a reason to get people to actually go to the cinema and not just pirate."

    Tbh, I feel the same way about this as I do for Sony's motives for going into 3D TV. That is to say, I don't give a hoot why cinemas are pushing 3D, I just care whether my experience as a viewer is good or not. I'm certainly not going to deprive myself of a fun experience, just because I think the company providing it doesn't have my fun at the top of their priority list.

  • Britesparc Verified Creative, ITV #37 2 years ago

    One reason I think 3D won't take off in a big way - yet - is that everyone needs the glasses. If I was playing, say, a flight sim on PC on my own (not something I'd do, TBH) then 3D would be great - but if I'm sitting casually on a sofa playing Arkham Asylum and my wife's reading a book in the same room, she might take an interest in the game - but less so, I'd imagine, if it's all blurry!

    Obviously more than one person can wear the glasses, but it stops things being so "casual" and makes it a "decision"... if any of that blabble makes sense!

  • callum9999 #38 2 years ago

    They aren't rushing 3D out "all of a sudden". They have been developing 3D TV screens and they are now at a stage where its feasible to mass-produce and sell them - a relatively simple concept I assumed?

    You need to create the content to attract people to buy it. Do you really expect 3D TVs will sell at a premium (as all new technology is when its first released) when there is next to no content for it? You need to make the content to attract people to buy the TVs.

    As to people moaning about how its going to be expensive and its just a gimmick and not wanted etc. - thats exactly the argument about HD when that was being introduced, now its hard to buy a non-HD TV. It will be slow to grow, but I don't doubt it will become widespread eventually (ever been to a 3D film showing? I've been to 6 so far and the screenings at the big multiplex had always been fully booked along with the next couple of showings - whether you like it or not, demand is there).

  • DrDamn #39 2 years ago

    I got a 40" 720p set for this gen and I'll look at upgrading to 1080p when the next batch of consoles are confirmed - probably a little while yet. I'll certainly take 3D into account when I buy, though it won't be a big deciding factor. Worth pointing out that the tech they are using comes as a consequence of other beneficial stuff (higher frame rates etc.). So it's all good. The only extra you'll pay is for the glasses.

  • kangarootoo #40 2 years ago

    @SPAM

    Well I suppose trying to give a reason is an upgrade to your previous info free post, but I'm not sure it has worked the way you intended.


    On the cost of glasses angle, anyone know how much they might actually costs? I expect them to get bundled with various things, but I am just supposing out loud.

  • Mkwone #41 2 years ago

    The Nvidia ones which work on PC gaming cost £110 each. I believe it's the same system that the big companies are pushing

    [link url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00292BG82/r ef=s9_sima_gw_s14_p23_t2?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=cent er-2&pf_rd_r=1E5P3BZ09VEW96EV64H0&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=467128 533&pf_rd_i=468294
    ]http://ww w.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0029...[/link]

    @BabyJesus, you're right that just because sony say 3d will be the future that it will be so, but more and more films are being done on 3d and not just B-movie horros and crap kids films. the 6 nations is being filmed and shown in the 3d. the world cup is being filmed in 3d. Sky say they are doing a 3d channel this year, as are ESPN.

    We will all eventually buy a new TV and if all tvs eventually support 3d (like most tvs are HD now) then why not make the most of it?

  • Anhunedd #42 2 years ago

    I would imagine that most current HD TVs could theoretically be firmware upgraded to display a 30fps 3D display if they wanted from a 1080i signal - just line double each field and display it for 1/60 second instead of keeping each field on screen for 1/30 second.

    All you then need is the glasses to operate at 30fps instead of 60fps.

    Not going to happen of course - they then couldn't sell you a new TV.

  • Widge #43 2 years ago

    I'd go for polarised glasses, shutter glasses don't sound appealing... plus its being able to afford a thing. I splashed out £1.1k on my TV because I had the funds at the time... much more difficult now. Bet I'd not recoup my outlay!

    There is an overwhelming amount of tech now though, the LED backlight stuff, OLED on the way... will the 3DTVs go for standard LCD or will they embrace those technologies. If 3D arrived in tandem with OLED, then that would be a decent enough upgrade (if OLED delivers on its contrast and motion promises)

  • kangarootoo #44 2 years ago

    @Mkwone

    Bloody hell, that is pricer than I expected. The ones I wore in the IMAX looked much cheaper (I figured £10 max or something). I guess polarised surfaces are pricey, regardless of how cheap you frame is that you mount them in.

    Edit: ooh, hang on. What is that little box sat nect to the glasses? They aren't the LCD shutter type are they? If so, they aren't the same type as I believe is going to be the home TV choice.

    Just checked Nvidia's site. Wireless shutter glasses it says. Are those the same type as are destined for home use?
    Edited by 1 at 19/01/10 @ 14:57

  • fiery_jackass #45 2 years ago

    > Bloody hell, that is pricer than I expected.
    different tech: the nvidia ones draw power and use alternate frame sequencing or something like it, I think

  • BabyJesus #46 2 years ago

    What does the world cup being filmed in 3d actually add?

    "Ohhh it looks like Ronaldo is running towards my face!"

    Come to think of it what does it add to anything? Nothing in my eyes aside from things jumping out the screen to scare you(how quaint) . A sense of depth perhaps but that is hardly something worth all this fuss.

    Bloody corporations PR would make Goebbels proud.

    Whats the next innovation that you MUST have to watch the news at 10? 3DHDTV WITH SCRATCH AND SNIFF COMING 2020! Now you can smell Robert Pestons pessimism!

    Luddites had the right idea.

  • frunk #47 2 years ago

    I can't believe there are so many ludites on this board! I would have thought that "future" and "technology" would be something that would be accepted by the folk here.

    This summer... too early... Hmmm. Sky launching 3D earlier, later in the year a couple more channels. Avatar and other 3D novelities out on Blu-Ray at the end of the year.

    Summer is probably about right. They can't wait "wait till its established" - so jump ASAP and start providing more reasons for peeps to consider 3D.

    Cost overhead... not huge - in reality most systems are just upping to 120Hz = 8ms refresh... which looking at most monitor specs has been surpassed some time ago. Fabrication will drive all screens to these types of rates over time. Next cost overhead - electronics to drive it... erm... well all the driver tech was available years ago - so a doubling of speed is what you expect every couple of years... so these days negligible overheads.

    So cost is not really being driven by tech... however there will be the "milk the early adopters" phase (i.e. Me). But even now folks are talking about a $200 overhead on TVs with 3D compared to their 2D bretheren. So yes a cost, but not outragously high as manufaurares want you to adopt.

    This time next year it will be: £599 for a decent quality 50" telly, £699 for same telly but 3D capable... ohh and look Avatar is on the shelf and we can use out existing PS3 to play it... and we can play those 3D games too... and...

    Anyone who does not want to pay the difference is a luddite and probably still thinks sheet music is better than a CD.

    EDIT: I should have marked that previous line as "a bit of a joke" aa there are other excuses too - like only having one eye... but you get the drfit. Many folks won't have the money in the next few years but they would not be buying the "decent quality TV" - they would get the "no-name brand" for £399 - but they will get swept up in time... look now... Blu-ray players £70, DVD Players £15, Set-top boxes £10, HD multimedia players £25... costs for this type of tech tends to zero... 3D does not actually require anything "not in a standard telly" except a few electronics - so within 3 years it will be difficult to buy a telly not 3D capable... a bit like trying to buy a non-HD-Ready telly now.

    And the folks that don't upgrade until they absolutely have to (like those still having issues with the digital TV switchover) are not the typical video-game playing demographic... queue... "I don't have digital TV" posts
    Edited by 1 at 19/01/10 @ 15:59

  • Carlo #48 2 years ago

    This is why GT5 was delayed.

  • kangarootoo #49 2 years ago

    @fiery_jackass

    Right, it is different tech, cheers. I updated my previous post.


    @BabyJesus

    "A sense of depth perhaps but that is hardly something worth all this fuss"

    Did you really just say that? "What does 3D add? Just a sense of depth, which isn't worth the fuss."

    Hmmm.

  • BabyJesus #50 2 years ago

    Yes I did, would a 'sense of depth' make Godfather 2 better?

    Would it make Uncharted better?

    It's aload of bollocks you can get enough of a sense of depth through normal means without having bloody 3d.

  • MeBrains #51 2 years ago

    bring it on! I look forward to buying a new tv in about 4-5 years and want the technology to be widely available by then. I want it to be a laser tv as well though - so bring that on as well. the HD Ready 42'' Ambilight TV I have here, cost me £300. What a great first step into 'HD' it is.

    oh... and I'll buy a PS3 as well somewhere this or next year. Another price drop before that?! ;)

  • jonthepymm #52 2 years ago

    @BabyJesus

    Have you actually seen any films in 3D? I was absolutely amazed at Avatar 3D in cinemas. I didn't expect that I would be able to focus on different parts of the picture - whether in the foreground or the background - and have the rest of the image blur around my focus point, just like in real life. Plus I flinched a couple of times when things seemed to be thrown out of the screen at me!

    Of course you can get a sense of depth without 3D TV. The point is - at least in my experience - the sense of depth WITH 3D far exceeds what has gone before.

  • fiery_jackass #53 2 years ago

    I'm not sure what SPAM was trying to link to, but there is a huge and inescapable problem with 3D, highlighted by Private Eye and brought to you by my limited artistic skills,here

  • mcwildcard #54 2 years ago

    I do wonder if the success of Avatar has brought this tech forward quicker that they anticipated.
    Strike while the iron is hot n'all that.

    My current telly is a budget 32" 1080i job, which I bought about 3 years ago.
    I've already decided that my next one will be 3D, I was thinking about grabbing a new telly with 1080p within the next year anyway and I wanted it to be a Sony Bravia, so this fits in nicely with my timetable. It just all depends on price, they'll obviously be dear, but they need to avoid that prohibitive 'enthusiasts' price bracket.

  • Skurmedel #55 2 years ago

    frunk: yes everybody! Amazing generalization.

  • kangarootoo #56 2 years ago

    @BabyJesus

    "Yes I did, would a 'sense of depth' make Godfather 2 better?

    Would it make Uncharted better?"

    Yes. Uncharted in particular would benefit immensely. Godfather 2 not so much.


    "It's aload of bollocks you can get enough of a sense of depth through normal means without having bloody 3d."

    So the entire 3D film business that is blooming now is based a collosal myth? One that has taken in most of the planet, except for you? Ok. I'm convinced.

  • BabyJesus #57 2 years ago

    Yes I have seen movies in 3d, who hasn't?

    It adds nothing for me and yes it works on my eyes.

    HD I could atleast see a tangible benefit, 3D I cannot. It's not the holy grail of entertainment that people seem to think it is, In my eyes it's just an attempt to force new TVs down peoples throats.

    It's a novelty turned into a mass market must have by hype.

    @Kangrootoo

    Going to the cinema to watch 3D is an expierence, watching tv in your house is routine. They are two separate things.

    I love how you are equating Avatars success to it purely being 3D. If something is good, it's good no matter whether its stick figures or 3d.
    Edited by 1 at 19/01/10 @ 15:21

  • kangarootoo #58 2 years ago

    @fiery_jackass

    You know, the guy in the second picture looked blown away by the effect to me. His jaw was literally dropping ;)

  • bodypopper #59 2 years ago

    Why are people getting so excited about Avatar in 3D? Have they never seen a film in 3D before?
    It boils down to a bit of depth here and there, some debris and seeds in the foreground and VDUs and ferns poking you in the face. It's not that big a deal (animated movies make much more of 3D) and the film is fine without it. Apart from having a rubbish story that it.

  • fiery_jackass #60 2 years ago

    only because my artistic skills weren't sufficient to render the receipt he was holding FOR A MILLION POUNDS.

    now I'm going to have to re-draw it with him looking miserable just so as I don't defeat my own point :(

  • kangarootoo #61 2 years ago

    @BabyJesus

    Ok, so you've seen it and you didn't like it.

    I've seen it, and I did like it. And I'm not one to be swung by hype.

    How do you explain this strange contradiction? You see, I'm not saying that you should have enjoyed it, or that you are lying about not enjoying it. What I am saying is that it is naive to dismiss something across the board, despite its evident popularity, just because it wasn't to your tastes.

    What exactly are you suggesting has happened to everyone else? That they have genuinely been imagining the increased entertainment they experienced just because some hype machine TOLD them they would hgave more fun?

    Some people ride rollercoasters and say meh, whilst others ride them and love it. Same goes for strolling through the countryside or playing chess. Put simply, just 'cos you don't like something doesn't mean the experience everyone else is having is false.
    Edited by 1 at 19/01/10 @ 15:23

  • kangarootoo #62 2 years ago

    "Talk about jumping the shark"


    "Jumping the shark is a idiom used by TV critics and fans to denote the point in a television program's history where the plot spins off into absurd story lines or unlikely characterizations"

    ?

  • BabyJesus #63 2 years ago

    Hype would be one thing, and people aren't as receptive to 3D as you seem to think it is just me that doesn't see this as anything other than a £££ grab.

    I know of nobody, that has said to me after seeing avatar I must have 3D it makes everything so much better! Even my technophile friends who pretty much early adopt every bloody thing going.

    Give it 5 years and we'll have yet another round of new things we need.



    Edited by 1 at 19/01/10 @ 15:32

  • Widge #64 2 years ago

    We'll see if word starts to spread. DF usually calls it straight if they see something as pointless, a waste or substandard... but quite positive on the technology.

  • Widge #65 2 years ago

    Christ though, what an attitude, we might as well stick with 4:3 TVs and VCRs because we don't really NEED anything new... it all shows a picture doesn't it?

  • jonthepymm #66 2 years ago

    @ BabyJesus

    After seeing Avatar I must have 3D. It makes everything so much better!

  • BabyJesus #67 2 years ago

    Difference is Widge that you seem to avoid while trying to be cutting and passive aggressive is there was and is a tangible benefit to dvd, blu ray, HD etc that there isn't to 3d except for it sticks out on the telly.

    @Jon

    Fair enough :)
    Edited by 1 at 19/01/10 @ 15:39

  • septimus #68 2 years ago

    This is a good thing. Why all the negativity?

    This is actually a step in the right direction. With added 3D, motion control may actually make sense, especially in immersion. It may be as limited as motion control initially (i.e. as used inappropriately in most Wii games), but the two together could be a strength.

  • jambo74 #69 2 years ago

    PC gamers will. They will spend £300 on a GFX card so why not a little more on a new 3D monitor. Consoles will be a bit further off.
    Edited by 2 at 19/01/10 @ 15:45

  • kangarootoo #70 2 years ago

    @BabyJesus

    "Hype would be one thing, and people aren't as receptive to 3D as you seem to think"

    "I know of nobody, that has said to me after seeing avatar I must have 3D it makes everything so much better!"

    As has been mentioned already in this thread, Avatar is close to becoming the highest grossing film of all time. And I believe it has also been mentioned that 4 of the top 10 grossing films of last year were 3D. Those numbers are hard to deny, regardless of your personal anecdotal experience.


    "Give it 5 years and we'll have yet another round of new things we need."

    I agree. But I don't see the connection.
    Edited by 1 at 19/01/10 @ 16:11

  • Skurmedel #71 2 years ago

    I'm skeptical, call me negative all you will but... I don't know, I have not seen any movie in 3D yet, and I doubt I will for a while. It might be awesome, but I can't help thinking it will be rather anticlimactic once the wow-factor is gone. Certainly I can see a lot of areas with a greater need of improvement.

    Peripherals, audio and bigger screens all come to mind. Most of us can't afford top-end stuff even in those areas. Surround has been around for ages as well, and while having the stuff for it at home and acknowledging it's benefits I rarely use it. Seems to be that way for many people. Maybe it comes down to not being essential for the experience, or at least not being of enough benefit to be perceived as essential. I suspect that will change as more and more things become surround compatible. That might happen with 3D as well, in the future.

    I just don't see the reason why we should get worked up for something that will work the way we want in 3 years time. I remember the plasma screens and how everyone just haaaaaaad to have one. Looking back now I'm glad I didn't get one of those, because they were pretty horrid.

  • WizenWolfBain #72 2 years ago

    I reckon the only quick adopters of this new tech will be the hardcore PC gamer bunch. I wouldn't be willing to scrap my new 42'' HDTV downstairs in favour of a 3DTV that excludes all who refuse to wear the silly glasses. But i might consider upgrading my PC monitor to a 3D monitor with a quick refresh rate, because that would be kinder to the wallet. And 99.9% of the time it's just the PC user looking at the monitor anyway, not a room full of people.

  • kangarootoo #73 2 years ago

    @Skurmedel

    "I just don't see the reason why we should get worked up for something that will work the way we want in 3 years time"

    I think there are two distinct discussions getting mashed together into one here.

    Personally, I am the same as you regards my future shopping list. I love 3D cinema, but I know I won't be buying a 3D telly anytime soon, because I don't plan on spending money on a new telly anytime soon. For me personally, the draw of 3D films and games isn't enough to make me change those plans.

    However... the case I have been pleading in this thread, entirely seperate from my own shopping plans, is that the time IS right for companies like Sony to start entering this market.

    Throughout this thread people have been saying it is too early for companies to start making loud noises in this area, purely on the basis that they personally won't buy a 3D TV anytime soon.

    I make a distinction between the two. I won't be buying a 3D TV myself, BUT it is the right time for companies to start promoting in, investing in and supporting the home 3D television market.

  • Skurmedel #74 2 years ago

    That is a good point indeed, although I'd rather have them invest into it and shut the hell up about it until it's ripe :) Sadly the world is not perfect :(

    Also, have you got what it takes? If so, check out the New Lynx Twist for most annoying flash banner award 2010.
    Edited by 1 at 19/01/10 @ 17:48

  • Ryze #75 2 years ago

    This sounds marvellous, and will be great for rich early adopters (depending on the retail price of the TV sets, obviously).

    They're going to have to find ways of letting the masses try this out, though, or they'll not be too fussed about 3D and will show their indifference by not bothering to invest.

    Sony have to re-learn how to raise peoples interest in their products - without lying to us.

    As far as all of this talk regarding adoption of the sets - the many people who are now looking for a 42" or bigger set, after buying a 32" 5 years ago will opt for a 3D set if they liked Avatar and the other movies enough to justify the cost.

    Also - there are legions of early adoptors and rich people who will snap this up immediately. The fact the Blu-Ray is ready and waiting, as are DirecTV and Sky - can only be a good thing.

    It's great that the PS3 will add another string to its bow - it damn sure needs an advantage!
    Edited by 1 at 19/01/10 @ 17:54

  • BobbyDeNiro #76 2 years ago

    Most people haven't even upgraded to HDTV yet so this will be a small market initially but there's alaways going to be an initial hard core techie group who buy into the latest tech straight away

  • El-Dev #77 2 years ago

    "Most people haven't even upgraded to HDTV yet"

    Everyone I know has at least one in their house now.

  • Skurmedel #78 2 years ago

    El-Dev I do not necessarily agree with you but I give you +1 anyway to counteract all the stupid minus voting on this site based purely on disagreement.

  • citizenHUNTER #79 2 years ago

    I hope people knocking 3D televisions realise they will also display nice old fashioned 2D images as well for the majority of stuff still in that format, which glasses won't be needed for....

    So much mis-information and plain old scare mongerig going on here. For god sake it might be like surround sound, being there as a possibility to enjoy when you feel like it and something you can forego when it's too much of an inconvenience but still can't you lot be happy that perhaps quicker than we thought we could be playing stuff like GT5 and LBP in three dimensions. It's not a bad thing ffs and no one will be forcing you to take part.

  • My1stLoveJak #80 2 years ago

    LBP 3D?! Yes, please! As long as the new 3D TVs aren't stupid expensive (moreso than HD - to be expected, but how big is the gap between them?), you can count me in

  • callum9999 #81 2 years ago

    BabyJesus: At my local cinema the Avatar 3D screenings were fully booked whereas the 2D screenings had lots of empty seats. They now have up to 8 screenings a day in 3D and no longer screen the 2D version.

    I'd say 3D had a huge impact on its popularity.

  • JohnnyWashnGo #82 2 years ago

    I want.

    Gimme gimme
    Edited by 1 at 20/01/10 @ 00:01

  • Machiavellian #83 2 years ago

    3D Isn't going to happen if I must purchase a Sony set to experience it. There are many different competing 3D technologies and it would be stupid to put your bet on one tech only to end up like HDDVD.

    I am in the market for a new HDTV myself but I am in no hurry. I will evaluate the tech and see what type of support it gets before I make my next HDTV decision. Probably Christmas will be when I am ready to make my purchase unless there are still a bunch of competing tech which would probably stall my purchase or totally skip the 3D sets.

    Current 3D sets are said to only cost 10% more than comparable HDTV sets out today. The cost of 3D sets will not be what hold the tech back but instead all the different tech itself.

    Include me as someone who was not blown away by Avatar but who thought that 3D did add an element to the movie that enriched the experience. Unlike Animated movies, Avatar used 3d a lot more subtle which I liked a lot. Because of the way that Avatar used 3D, I can see myself actually watch all my movies that way.

  • witchdrash #84 2 years ago

    Depending on how my nVidia 3d display kit thingie works when it turns up I may be first inline to pick up one of those new shiny 3d HDTVs, I've been looking for an excuse to get a better HDTV as the ghosting on my current is starting to annoy me, if you've ever played Bayonetta on an oldish HDTV you'll know exactly what I mean.

    Less fussed about 3D Blu-ray, but having a PS3 I'll be picking those up as well, but it's mostly for the games! Shame MS don't have any plans to do the same...

  • IronGiant #85 2 years ago

    BabyJesus sounds like a bitter and twisted little oik, thankgod for the voting on comments.. i haven't had to read any of his crap :)

    Regarding having to buy a Sony 3D TV there will be plenty of choice as most of the big manufacturers are making them. 3D is like any other technology released to the home market, there will be a flood of early adopters who can't wait to get hold of a 3D telly.. then there will be the rest of us who'll either jump in at some point or not bother at all. Seeing Avatar and hearing how good games like LBP, Wipeout and GT5 look in 3D makes me a lot more excited about 3D in the home. There are some here that will only start backing this when Microsoft get involved.. even though they have said they'll join in when the market is there.

  • Eraserhead #86 2 years ago

    I think the 3D advocates here are being a bit misguided.

    Film studios love the idea of 3D because it makes their films almost unpirateable (if you'll excuse the word), and they can also charge considerably more for tickets. Ditto cinema chains, once the tech is installed. TV manufacturers like Sony like it because it's the "next big thing" and there really isn't anything else on the horizon (such as HD) which they can tout.

    Cinema viewers like it because it's new to some of them - especially younger folk.

    But it's a fad. The tech has been in and out of fashion for about 50 years now. It's a cyclical thing. If ALL films were 3D, I'd bet most of them would be really, really bad. Creating an effective 3D experience for a film is really expensive, and very time-consuming - so if it did become the norm, there would be a whole lot of of automatically-processed dross run through an imaging app which just looked meh at best.

    Thing is, sound was a big step in film. Colour was another. But 3D? Really, unless it's a full-on proper 360 degree holographic experience, with no need for extra equipment a la glasses, no one is actually clamouring for it - except those studios...
    Edited by 1 at 20/01/10 @ 03:00

  • man.the.king #87 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    "Some people ride rollercoasters and say meh, whilst others ride them and love it. "

    ...And some ride them and go "Gulp". That would be me :)

    ON-TOPIC: I'm excited about this as well, and am looking to upgrade my HDTV (a Sony XBR1) whenever my wallet allows. My choice has changed from HDTV to 3DTV now. Maybe end of this year or next year...

  • man.the.king #88 2 years ago

    @farticusmaximus

    "it certainly isn't viable now. "

    What, for games or movies? As far as movies are concerned, I would say movies that feature 3D are more common now, and I would certainly like to experience these at home (I usually don't go to the Cinema unless it's a movie I'm really, really interested in, e.g. Moon, Avatar...). Sure, games might take a little longer. However, what about these games that have been demoed?

  • dfish #89 2 years ago

    3d is the new colour tv:)

  • kangarootoo #90 2 years ago

    @Eraserhead

    Most of your assumptions are about 5 years out of date I'm afraid.

    "Creating an effective 3D experience for a film is really expensive, and very time-consuming - so if it did become the norm"

    It isn't that expensive any more, and it IS becoming the norm. A quick scoot round the internet will reveal just how many cinemas in the UK have a 3D screen now (its about 50 times what it was 3 years ago). Another quick scoot around the web will show you just how many films are being released in 3D now (again, stacks more than 3 years ago).


    The "fad" of 3D has been in and out for a fair while, as you say. But it has been that way because it has previously been too expensive to stay in. Quite simply, that is no longer the case.

    Passenger flight was a "cyclical fad" for ages before it became established. Electricity wired into your house was the preserve of the very rich at one stage. Even high speed train travel was sporadic around the world. There are loads of things that are "in and out" while the tech gets established and the costs come down, after which they become a normal part of life.

    AGAIN I say, we are not seeing a new pattern here. 3D is following the same path HDTV followed, , the same path that mp3 players followed, even the same path that CRT televisions followed so long ago. 3D will eventually just be "the way TV works", and it won't seem like a fad anymore.

  • Eraserhead #91 2 years ago

    My point was that to make 3D EFFECTIVE - ie. actually mean something in terms of framing, visuals and so on - you need to spend a whole lot of more time storyboarding, staging and so on right from the beginning of a film's development. It's much like the same way a good cinematographer treats colour, lighting, composition and so on. It's a whole other dimension (ho ho) to think about when making a film - and that means more time and money.

    Yes, of course you can just make a standard film in 3D with a stereo camer and not give a toss whether it looks good or not, but that's not using the process effectively. That leads to glaring visual oddities and other illusion-breaking headaches.

    Also, note that many of the 3D films are either entirely CG or have a significant amount of CG in them - and since you can control CG to the nth degree, this makes wrangling the 3D effects much easier. It's not so simple with live action movies.

    Anyway, none of this is about gaming really, so I'll shut up now.

  • shinesevens #92 2 years ago

    I see a lot of perfectly reasonable comments on here have been demoted below the viewing threshold.

    User moderation open to abuse?

  • man.the.king #93 2 years ago

    @shinesevens

    "User moderation open to abuse? "

    If you want to see rampant User moderation abuse, see comments section for any articles related to PS3 exclusive GT5. Anybody daring to say anything good about GT5 is chiefly down-voted (mostly I suspect by gamers devotedly loyal to the "other" platform), while anybody criticizing that as yet unreleased game (regarding how GT5 would fail to stack up against a similar game that is available on the shelves) is unreservedly up-voted.
    Edited by 3 at 21/01/10 @ 05:40

  • drxym #94 2 years ago

    Generally speaking user moderation is fine but it is abused. If you want to see that in practice, just comment in a way contrary to what fanboys want to hear. It could be perfectly valid criticism but it will still get modded down.
    Edited by 1 at 21/01/10 @ 13:50