backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 14 comment(s) - last by Oregonian2.. on Dec 1 at 2:40 PM
The interest surrounding 3D has continued to grow, but there are some hurdles that must be taken care of

The consumer industry has continued a shift towards 3DTV development as manufacturers and consumers both look forward to the technology, with a drastic increase of 3D-related patents, according to Reuters.

Over the past five years, the number of 3D patents increased 69%, as 2008 saw at least 1,000 unique 3DTV patents filed.  Furthermore, 3D patents related to cinema also increased 49%, with companies working to create projection systems, 3D glasses, and similar accessories necessary.

In the future, expect to see even more 3D-related patents filed as manufacturers continue their push to promote the format to consumers over the next five years, analysts predict.

3DTVs aren't necessarily new to the consumer industry, but this marks the first true industry-wide push for 3DTV use.  Sony, Philips and several other TV manufacturers have shown a great interest in 3D, with the rest of the companies and broadcasters slowly catching up.  Sony predicts by March 2013 that half of all TVs the company ships will be 3DTVs

There are several issues the industry faces trying to convince consumers to test 3D, including the idea that consumers want the format, but are hesitant to pay even more for the technology.  Another problem is that many 3DTVs -- and movie theaters showing 3D movies -- force viewers to wear custom glasses, though it appears many consumers don't like wearing them.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Gaming?
By R6Raven on 11/30/2009 8:43:53 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
...though it appears many consumers don't like wearing them.

I agree the glasses are a pain, but COD:MW2 in 3D + surround sound = happiness.




RE: Gaming?
By TSS on 11/30/2009 9:53:15 AM , Rating: 2
The problem for me isn't as much the glasses, it's the technology itself. I would love to see some true 3D images. Only these 3D technologies all give the illusion of 3D. And that's where my problem lies.

If you can see through the illusion, the technology is useless. I've found with glasses on it's just easyer to see through the illusion (compared to techonologies without it). Also, movies that aren't specifically made for the trick have less of an impact. Camera shots are done quite differently to give the illusion of 3D more effect. A RTS will benefit less from 3DTV then a FPS or racing game.

If they actually manage to make a working hologram TV where you can walk around the 3D images which are actually suspended in mid air i'll probably pay through the nose for such a device. I bought an 37" LCD for 650 euro's, i'd buy a 14" hologram television for 1300 euro's.

But i'm getting enough illusions from my regular 2D TV, so i'll probably won't buy into 3DTV for a long time.


RE: Gaming?
By ZombieRitual on 11/30/2009 12:27:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The problem for me isn't as much the glasses, it's the technology itself. I would love to see some true 3D images. Only these 3D technologies all give the illusion of 3D. And that's where my problem lies.


I fully agree with this. I watched Christmas Carol in 3D yesterday and while I enjoyed it, the extra cost was not justified. It just felt like a gimmick. Yeah it did look like it was in 3D, but throughout the movie I just kept feeling like I was watching cardboard cutouts, some placed closer to me and some placed further away. It wasn't very impressive.


RE: Gaming?
By Black69ta on 11/30/2009 10:10:00 PM , Rating: 2
And Therein lies the rub, 3D as a entertainment technology will not be able to go mainstream until movie makers can come together and formulate, collaborate and come up with a plan to make movies using a standard set-up, so that it will display equally and without special glasses on every brand sold, until then 3D will remain unworthy as a consumer commodity . If a TV resembles a "Window" rather than Cardboard cutouts at various distances, the minds eye is fooled and Suspension of Disbelief, becomes easier, when the eyes can tell no difference between looking out a window and watching TV.


RE: Gaming?
By yoyoma245 on 12/1/2009 11:16:10 AM , Rating: 2
Funny, I saw Christmas Carol in 3D and it did not look like cardboard cutouts. It looked very convincingly 3-d. I saw it in an IMAX though, did you see it in a regular theater or IMAX?


RE: Gaming?
By Oregonian2 on 12/1/2009 2:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
Or in RealD which is the leading theatre 3d technology at the moment (in terms of installations). RealD uses passive glasses with circular polarization that look like sunglasses. IMAX uses a comparatively large "active" LCD glasses thingie. There is a third competitor that uses active glasses as well, but is much more compact and lower cost than IMAX's.

Where one sits in a theater can also change how 3D looks.

The "cardboard" look is something usually characteristic of either poor production or of low-resolution of the display, both that I'd be surprised seeing in a big budget production, but possible.

I've been doing still 3D photography for about thirty years.


Transistion and Quality
By DarthKaos on 11/30/2009 10:16:40 AM , Rating: 2
The transition from regular TVs to 3D TVs is going to be long and difficult. Just moving to high def was difficult and that was actually improving the image people were looking at. Going to 3D TV is just adding a feature. I don't think people will be in a big hurry to make the move.

Not only that but everything I have seen in 3D seems to lose some quality of picture. I am all for having things in 3D but I am not willing to decrease the quality of what I am watching to do so.




RE: Transistion and Quality
By The0ne on 11/30/2009 11:45:38 AM , Rating: 2
High Def still has a long ways to go and it hasn't infiltrated some homes yet. Add to the complication that HD channels are scarce and often times comes with a price tag. There are higher resolutions proposed (forgot names) but I'm doubting whether they'll succeed. The average Joe is happy with 720P and more happy with 1080P, if he gets the signal.

Anything much higher than that will...well...if you can, watch the clip of 30 Rock with Tina Fey moving between HD and SD cameras :D Hilarious!

As for 3DTV, I personally think it's not ready yet. Technology has been slow compare to others. You need a whole lot of different hardware if you want to mass 3D. Maybe when it does reach maturity we'll have CGI to rival it. This I'm actually looking forward to as the last time I was immerse in a complete 3D world was over 12 years ago. If they apply the same graphics and technologies as we have them today, it would be simply amazing!!!


RE: Transistion and Quality
By mcnabney on 11/30/2009 12:15:20 PM , Rating: 2
3DTV and the over 1080p resolutions aren't coming to the mass market anytime soon. Content in 3D is unwatchable without the glasses, which leaves the technology in the 'event' category and not the everyday one. And right now, most people aren't even seeing the full sharpness of their 1080p displays. You have to sit pretty damn close to the screen to fully resolve 1080p and moving to 4K will make that drastically closer. Maybe if demand for for VERY larger screens made available by projectors increase exponentially, but I wouldn't invest in it. That, and BluRay is still nowhere near replacing DVD. 3D can be a fun gimmick, but I don't see it moving into the living room like surround sound and HDTV has. Too much fuss for questionable returns.


RE: Transistion and Quality
By Oregonian2 on 12/1/2009 2:38:00 PM , Rating: 2
3D is taking the movie theaters by storm, and is doing so by bringing in incredibly more money per screen than 2D screens of the same movie. Among other things, it competes with things like the 58" 1080p plasma we have at home (as an example). So the theater folk would probably hope home-3d take as long as possible. It's a differential advantage they have over home HD theater.

Some years from now, when 3D is "standard" in the theater, that will drive bringing it home. What's going on now is just laying the groundwork so that when it happens, the pathway will be in place.


not interested
By gorehound on 11/30/2009 5:38:32 PM , Rating: 2
Not interested in wearing glasses and watching stuff like I did in the past...........
like I am 54 years old and this tech is just like the tech I have seen since i was a child.
I will not buy into this tech as it doesnot look like real 3d and forces you to wear glasses and it screws with the good colors/resolution as well.




RE: not interested
By mac2j on 12/1/2009 11:10:22 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that the "Glasses at home" 3DTVs will be kind of a niche market ... if you like to have a bunch of friends over or the neignorhood kids to watch a 3D movie etc kind of thing.

The question is when do we get real holographic TV. Technologically the visor type of real virtual reality type TV might actually be available before real holographic projection (you can walk around the 3D image).

Right now the technologies dont exist to create crisp, well-defined 3D holograms - its still at the level of "how do we project into what from where". Even if it did exist we have the whole other issue of transmitting the massive amounts of data necessary to encode a truly holographic 3D movie/show.


RE: not interested
By jimbojimbo on 12/1/2009 1:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
You seem the think the only 3D technology is the blue/red glasses. It's not. Almost all of the HDTVs on sale these that say they're 3D ready mean they have refresh rates hign enough to support shutter glasses, glasses that need power that have LCD lenses that'll darken or not at a high rate. There is also the new laser projection TV that'll support polarized glasses, which IMAX and digital 3D theaters use. It does not mess with the color or resolution one bit and actually looks pretty damn good. I'm waiting for these TVs to go on sale. The problem now though is how will the media be created to work on these TVs? Will you need special players? I will say yes.


RE: not interested
By Oregonian2 on 12/1/2009 2:40:44 PM , Rating: 2
The standard that Panasonic is promoting provides a full 1080P full color full resolution image for each eye. No degradation in image quality, in fact it's higher quality with the 3D information being ADDED. For home is is delivered by a Blu-ray 3D format (that's compatible with 2D players/screens).

I've been doing 3d photography for about thirty years. It can be done VERY VERY well.


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson

DailyTech Poll
Do you use ad blocking software on your browser? 



32 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki