Half of the new TVs Sony releases will be 3D capable by 2013, the electronics giant has claimed. But it admitted that hardware sales will be governed by the availability of content. Speaking earlier this week in Japan, Hiroshi Yoshioka, Executive Deputy President of Sony, revealed that 3D sets will account for between 30 and 50 …
Interesting to know, but what is the TECHNOLOGY aspect of this?
Do you honestly imagine half the public will be sat around their TVs wearing those stupid red and blue glasses?
Or is there some other way of making a TV 3d that they are going to use?
It would have been a little more interesting to hear what they are planning... do you think?
Predictions, predictions, predictions...
Can anyone dig up Sony's Blu Ray predictions for 2009 and compare them to reality ?
It's not just about availability, price has a bearing as well.
Sorry, but I do not want a 3D TV. It is just a silly gimmick.
What would be nice would be an ultra high resolution 3D head set with head tracking.
You could be on the beach with Private Ryan or wander around in a classic like 12 angry men.
Or more likely get right down close to that hot porn action.
To be quite honest, I think 3D is pointless while ever it requires stupid glasses. It's a novelty, not a mainstream feature.
3D isn't the same as sound or colour. We only see the very near world in 3D, everything else is 2D and the brain uses other clues to judge distance.
I'm still trying to get most of the details about it, but I think you're right in that they won't be autostereoscopic (not needing glasses)--that makes the viewing angle too narrow. However, I think the tech of choice will be polarization. The glasses needed for such sets don't affect general and especially color perception nearly as much, and the glasses are still passive so they won't need batteries like shutter glasses do.
It's not remotely 3D. There is no Z axis (Raster/Image based 3D) or Wavefront creation.
NOT 3D but Stereoscopic.
It's just a Left Eye and Right Eye Picture. A trick.
It doesn't even work very well for some people and without LCD shutter "glasses" doesn't really work for perhaps as much as 20% of people.
This is an epic waste of money and bandwidth. To have the same quality you need up to twice the bandwidth. Of course real 3D using Image/Raster Z-axis would need over 100 times bandwidth. Holographic 3D bandwidth is worse.
Of course for "fake 3D" Stereoscopic TV you only need two cameras side by side.
Shutters or Polarising?
LCD shutters work best. Hence the tech chosen by all 3D laptops and most 3D TVs in production.
No-one is suggesting Anaglyphtic (amber/blue or red/blue) glasses. Apart from the recent C4 fest.
Sky seems to be going for Shutter Glasses with their 3D launch, which needs a suitable TV, but existing Sky HD box.
some collected Reg articles here with text tying them and Wiki articles to a more coherent overview?
Obviously the man with Goggles Icon.
Probably LCD shutter specs
Earlier reg article http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/09/02/sony_3d/
All very well, but will they be capable of handling DVB-T ?
I don't even want bloody 3D....
...not until a 3D hologram can sit on my coffee table.
DVB-t is so ten years ago.
You need DVB-T2 (UK HD) and MPEG4 (Anywhere in Ireland, Estonia, NZ etc for SD, or UK/France HD) now. Plus MHEG5 for Interactive (Ireland), Plus something else they will think of in 2011.
Nobody simply knows...
In fact such a technology of real 3D already exists and it'll be for free sale in 2010. It is without any glasses and multiscopic (non 2 in stereo). I don't know if this needs more bandwidth.
- Crawling from the Wreckage Want a more fuel efficient car? Then redesign it – here's how
- Apple SILENCES Bose, YANKS headphones from stores
- Flesh-flapping, image-zapping app Snapchat NOW ad-wrapped
- Vid NASA eyeballs SOLAR HEAT BOMBS, MINI-TORNADOES and NANOFLARES on Sun
- TV Review Doctor Who's Flatline: Cool monsters, yes, but utterly limp subplots