# HD Fans, too bad,, outdated TV.. 2010 3D TV



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

September 2, 2009

Sony plans to put 3D TVs in homes by end of 2010Lucy Bannerman 

Recommend? 
Sony will announce today that it is aiming to put 3D televisions in homes by the end of 2010. 

Sir Howard Stringer, its chief executive, is due to announce that consumers will be able to buy 3D Bravia television sets, Vaio laptops, Playstation3 games consoles and Blu-Ray disc players that are compatible with 3D technology. 

It will be an important boost for the 3D industry, which until now has concentrated on enhancing the cinema screen experience. 

Sir Howard will tell a technology trade show in Berlin: “3D is clearly on its way to the mass market. As with high-definition a few years back, there are a variety of issues yet to be addressed. But the 3D train is on the track and we at Sony are ready to drive it home.” 

Related Links
Exclusive: Avatar trailer 
3D films back in cinema, but porn will lead 
Brace yourself for 3D television 
The burgeoning 3D market is poised to revolutionise the consumer electronics industry. British Sky Broadcasting has already announced plans to introduce a 3D satellite channel in the UK next year. 

Avatar, the new sci-fi epic by James Cameron, who directed Terminator and Titanic, uses the latest 3D technology. The film, which reportedly cost £180 million to make and is due to be released here in December, is one of the most eagerly anticipated films in years and is expected to take more than $1 billion at the box office, largely because of the new technology. 

A number of specialist film companies are reportedly preparing to exploit the hype for the 3D medium. Uptake of 3D has taken off over the past three years, with 7,000 screens expected to be in use worldwide by the end of this year. 

It has been a long time coming. Sony’s plans to venture into the domestic consumer market come 115 years after the 3D film process was patented by the British film pioneer William Friese-Greene. 

The Queen’s coronation in 1953 was filmed in 3D and will be shown for the first time on Channel 4 later this year as part of a week-long series of programmes celebrating the technology. 

Those who want to enjoy the full 3D experience will need special spectacles, which will be available free at branches of Sainsbury’s in the week before the programmes air. They will be shown in ColorCode 3D, which looks almost like an ordinary image when viewed without glasses. The experience is brought to life when viewed through the ColorCode spectacles, which have an amber and a dark blue lens. 

ColorCode does not need a 3D-ready television and works on computer monitors and flatscreen televisions, programme-makers said. 

The electronics industry has yet to agree on a 3D standard format, however, leading to the risk of a format war. 

Sony is planning to use “active shutter” technology, which uses electronic glasses containing small shutters that blink rapidly in time with a television image to create a three-dimensional effect. 

Cinema 3D uses a simpler “polarisation” technique.


----------



## thomas_d92 (Nov 29, 2004)

If the viewer is required to wear glasses it will not go over . I will not buy any 3D system if I must wear glasses to watch it.


----------



## Jestr40 (Jul 23, 2007)

thomas_d92 said:


> If the viewer is required to wear glasses it will not go over . I will not buy any 3D system if I must wear glasses to watch it.


I agree, I watched the Harry Potter movie in 3D IMAX and even though only the first 15 or 20 minutes was in 3D, it was giving me a headache. Just can't imagine watching tv like this for very long periods at a time.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

I also think that 3D is not going to take over for everyday TV viewing, It never has in 30 plus years and they have tried multiple times. The glasses are what kills it. Also, as long is "3D" is really just 2 or 3 planes of depth with the occaisional gag jumping out at the screen, most people do not see it as much of a value add. Now, Avatar might change that from what I have been reading, but that is one film and it will a long time before there are many others like that.


----------



## dbronstein (Oct 21, 2002)

It doesn't matter if the TVs are coming out if there isn't going to be any programming for them. I agree that needing glasses is going to be a big issue for a lot of people anyway. But look how long it took HD to become widely adopted and that was with the government mandated switch to digital.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

Samsung already has 3D TV's, but it requires a PC to see 3D: Link to Samsung 3D


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

Sony losing Money fast-based on the 3D statement.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Reality Check...

1) Announcing plans to release them and actually putting them into production are 2 different things.

2) Having seen a number of things at the 2009 CES in January that are just now coming to market, and others not yet on the market....I'll believe it when I see it in stores. I did see it at the CES, and it is indeed neat technology, but those were all prototypes.

3) Since these will likely be accompanied by astronomically-high prices, don't expect any kind of realy purchasing traction for at least another year thereafter.

4) There has only been very limited support announced from content providers - and even that reflects more than one technology approach.

For those main reasons....I think everyone is good with their current HDTV for a few more years with no problem.


----------



## DMRI2006 (Jun 13, 2006)

LOL at the "outdated TV" part. 3-D is still, basically, a gimmick. Agreed with the earlier poster that it keeps coming back every other decade with the same, ultimate result. Right now the movie studios are pushing it hard because it means they can jack up ticket prices (one of the reasons why THE FINAL DESTINATION made as much as it did had to do with the 3-D element, most analysts stated). But going from using it as a theatrical component to the point where people at home will spend thousands on it -- and then wear glasses at home?? No way. Ain't gonna happen. (And for how much programming? Pixar movies? Fleeting 3-D TV broadcasts?). I'm sure it looks incredible but the masses are going to have zero interest in this, with the price tag and the inconvenience of wearing glasses day in and day out. There is no way, ever, it's going to become a standard that will force you to change up your HDTV -- more like a novelty item for people with disposable incomes to play around with. And likely another way for Sony to lose more billions if they actually think it's going to have widespread use at home.


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

DMRI2006 said:


> Call me crazy but I still think 3-D is a gimmick. It keeps coming back every other decade with the same, ultimate result. Right now the movie studios are pushing it because it means they can jack up ticket prices (one of the reasons why THE FINAL DESTINATION made as much as it did had to do with the 3-D element, most analysts stated). But going from using it as a theatrical component to the point where people at home will spend thousands on it -- and then wear glasses at home?? I'm sure it looks incredible but the masses are going to have zero interest in this, with the price tag and the inconvenience of wearing glasses day in and day out. There is no way, ever, it's going to become a standard that will force you to change up your HDTV -- more like a novelty item for people with high incomes to play around with.


I guess I'm crazy, too, because I think it's a gimmick as well. I've seen several 3-D movies lately. It was fun, but just didn't add enough to the telling of the story to be worth it.

(Of course, people probably used to say the same thing about talkies, color, surround sound, and HD.)


----------



## DMRI2006 (Jun 13, 2006)

DogLover said:


> (Of course, people probably used to say the same thing about talkies, color, surround sound, and HD.)


But the difference is that 3-D has been around before...in fact it's been around a whole bunch of times over the decades. Yes with the technology now it's improved (though I'd argue how much of an asset it really is to most of the films that have utilized it), but they've tried to make 3-D a constant part of the theatrical experience before -- and failed -- and then part of the home-going experience so many times before -- and failed every time -- that I can't see it happening this time either. Just because people might spend the money to watch a 3-D movie for 2 hours in a theater doesn't necessarily mean they'll ever _want_ to wear those glasses every day at home -- and then add spending well over a grand or two to do so? Forget it!

People haven't been buying into Blu-Ray to watch HD movies on video as quickly or as widespread as they thought -- so I can't see them going crazy about spending even more hundreds of dollars (or thousands) to buy ANOTHER new TV, and another new player, just to watch 3-D at home -- and wear glasses too?! Not going to happen. This is going to be something for high-end techies with money to burn, and likely just a novelty item, for years and years to come.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

What does this have to do with DIRECTV programming and services???


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

I'm moving this to the High Definition Displays forum.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Outdated? The only 3d that will work would be projection based holograms.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

A segment of Hollywood, led by James Cameron, is pushing hard for 3D, because they feel that it will give Hollywood something that's harder to recreate in the home, and thus retain the relevance of the movie theater experience. Also, they feel the technology has arrived to make it feasible to do on a wider basis without being used for strickly gimmick "shark bites the audience" shots.

I agree with the others, though. 3D is and will remain a gimmick as long as glasses are involved. People simply don't like them and won't pay extra for the feature (en masse, anyway). 3D is going to die a quick death, and 3-4 years from now, people will talk about it much like we talk about HD-DVD today...


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Hollywood needs to focus on other things, such as lower prices for theaters and, if they really want 3d, 3d holgrams using projection (Now THAT would be nice). If they could do that, they could jack the price up to whatever, you couldn't replicate that at home.

Besides, how does 3d using glasses make hdtv outdated? I remember seeing movies as a kid using 3d glasses in the 80's, but I don't remember hdtv...


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

Don't care how 3-D is delivered, when it comes to TV, unless you can just watch it without wearing special glasses, it's just a gimmick.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Most likely it was just really bad 3D but the times that I've seen a show done in 3D (thinking Medium and Chuck), it's just been bad. I gave up on the glasses and almost on the episode.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

If the glasses were something that everyone could actually wear instead of something that you punch out of a sheet in a magazine, many people's attitudes might change. Now that wearing spectacles is fashionable, they need to craft some sort of comfortable goggles that fit over eyeglasses.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

thomas_d92 said:


> If the viewer is required to wear glasses it will not go over . I will not buy any 3D system if I must wear glasses to watch it.


Ditto here! That is unless someone comes up with a 3-D monocle


----------

