Ben-DutkaI'm willing to bet that very few of you have 3D-enabled TVs out there but don't worry, all that's going to change in just a few years time.
This according to a prediction by research firm Insight Media , which claims that by 2014, over 40 million gamers will own these nifty 3D TVs. The report was entitled, "2009 Stereoscopic 3D Gaming Report: A Comprehensive Analysis of S-3D Technology for Gaming," and not surprisingly, it first says that the market is in the infancy stages. At the same time, it says the popularity will surge quickly and to address some concerns that 3D gaming will contribute to heavier eye stress and strain, the report adds:
"We have played Stereoscopic 3D games for hundreds of hours and can report that the latest technology does not result in eye strain or fatigue. Our experience leads us to believe that S-3D gaming is more immersive and compelling than traditional gaming on a 2D screen, and it will help drive 3D adoption."
Well, if you have the means, you could – theoretically – check out 3D gaming right now. The Sony Bravia HDTVs won't support this feature until the end of next year and most HDTVs don't offer the option, but some do. Furthermore, the recently released Avatar: The Game is fully 3D. It's not a very good game, apparently, but hey, you can at least see the future if you so choose. Of course, that might require you to do some research and drop a hefty chunk of change on a new TV, so maybe you just want to wait for the revolution to officially arrive.
I could give you a half assed response to your questions but maybe Highlander is around here to explain it better than I could.
The console or video source supplies the 3D imagery as one frame from each stereoscopic point of view instead of a single view point frame, so there are effectively double the number of frames to display, which is why the TV needs to be at least 120Hz.
A 3D Ready TV is either 120Hz or 240Hz and it uses the extra refresh cycles to display the alternate frame, so you are getting two frames, one from each stereoscopic viewpoint. There are a couple of ways to do this, one involves TVs that can polarize the pixels so that with polarized lenses you see the 3D image, and each image is an interlaced blend of the frame from both viewpoints. Another technology (nVidia & I think Sony uses a version of this too) uses active shutter glasses. Basically glasses with lenses that have a liquid crystal material in the lens that can become opaque in an instant, and then transparent again in an instant. The shutters are timed to match the TV which alternately displays the frame from the two different viewpoints so the left viewpoint is seen by the left eye, and the right is seen by the right eye.
In both cases the brain is left to interpret the optical information and stitch it together into a 3D view. As long as the refresh rate is fast enough, the brain can do it.
I'll say this, though, until someone comes up with a cheap, working and high quality 3D TV that needs no glasses to view, I won't be all that interested. I already wear glasses so I can see, how will these 3D glasses work for me exactly? If my prescription glasses are too large then whatever dorky glasses I need to see 3D won't fit, and that rules me and a whole bunch of other consumers out at a single stroke.
Last edited by TheHighlander on 12/9/2009 11:05:33 PM
Ha ha ha
@Highlander
I am impressed.
if you need glasses to help you see and have enough money to buy a 3D capable TV, I'd advise to get lasik surgery before you buy that TV. Its really the best investment ever. Then by the time you want a 3D TV, it will be even cheaper.
@Sweedie,
I'm not sure. I have to agree with you, I originally thought that the technology would mean that any TV capable of 120Hz or higher would be able to handle this. But I think (for Sony) it will have to do with the system to synchronize the shutters on the glasses, and possibly updating the TVs video processor to handle the additional frames per second, since it will be receiving 120 frames per second and not 60, I also imagine that the video processor will want to have two completely dedicated frame buffers so that the frames for each point of view can be cached to allow the TV to continue to perform the same video processing magic it does to prevent fast movement from causing on screen tearing and other artifacts of digital compression and display on a LCD panel.
I'd also imagine that for competing systems that use polarization, the actual screen must be capable of polarizing the pixels either individually or line by line, as well as the video processing elements having to be improved for a 3D feed.
Now, I will state this clearly. I don't work in the field, I have read, and read, and stayed as current with video technology as I can over the last 20 years (I am a TOTAL geek), so my explanations of the technology are a combination of what I have learned along with anything i can find at my usual tech resources to update my understanding, along with my opinion based on my 20+ year career in technology and computing. Yeah, I know it's a caveat and a cop out, but I don't want to mislead anyone into thinking I am some kind of oracle of tech knowledge. That said, I do personally feel that I am at least as well qualified to speak on the subjects as most of the so called analysts who get paid to make predictions.
Either way, please verify anything that you think doesn't jive with your understanding, or just makes no sense at all. Frankly, a lot of what I say makes no sense at all.
I think you have got it perfectly.
AGH! Oh, scared me, but it was just a stereopticon.
as long as I don't need to wear those dorky glasses. Besides, I'm happy as hell with my regular 1080p HDTV.
Having to wear any kind of dumb glasses really makes this not very appealing at all
So I agree, if those glasses are required, this'll be a big problem
Hopefully, it will be something you can turn on and off thru an options menu, like 120 HZ on Samsung HDTVs.
Im not so sure on this one. OLED tvs haven't made an impact like they thought, so I think we should just wait and see what companies decide to do with 3D. But I cant see 3D catching on that quick. Maybe Im wrong, though.
Last edited by Reccaman18 on 12/9/2009 10:22:18 PM
I don't think we need this
We'll see, this is a situation where one has to experience it and see how it would fit, or if it enhances games at all
I don't think this will come to pass. It's taking an age for HDTV to break into the mass market. BluRay has similarly taken a long time to get to mass market. Are we to suppose that by 2014 not only will 3D co0ntent be widespread, but a single stable 3D technology standard will have been established allowing TVs to enter mass production based around a single standard supported by all? And 40 million early adopters and others will buy into it?
Really? I mean, really? I'm gonna set out my 3D skeptic booth, the "3D is a gimmick!" T-Shirts are free.
P.S. The T-shit has a back side that reads "…for now."
I love t-shits!
I'll buy one of those t-shirts, as long as it's not gold plated.
They have a hard time predicting what the weather will be like in 3 days. Now they're telling us what we're all going to buy in 4 years from now? I think they need to polish their crystal ball.
Hmmm.
Why not skip to 4D?
lol
as I understand it, 4D is just the comprehension, aswell as effects of time…
for example, there are a few (i think 1 actually :P) game out (can't remember what one) that has 4D. where as the game goes on, metal rusts, buildings crumble, carcasses rot, and water evaporates. all in real time…
if you think about it, most games out now are 3D, in the sence that they show depth and are obviously not 2d mario sprites 😛
mhmmm and where are we going to find these thousands of dollars to buy new TVs?
certainly not coming from my pocket.
i got my new TV not even a year ago, i only spent 1400 bucks on it and im not looking to buy a new TV for at least another 5 years.
maybe by 2014 people will start to look for new TVs because the HD ones they bought now would be fairly old by then.
key word being START!
i cant see 40 million people buying a 3D TV in 3 years. (basically because there not due out till late next year early 2011)
It kinda makes you wish you could get paid for making these kinds of BS 'market forecasts' doesn't it?
bloody oath!
Glad I went high end with my 73" HDTV, cause it's 120hz. Never have gone ahead to get the hardware needed beyond that though. Where movies are concerned it gets stupidly expensive at that point, and there's lacking support for it. With no real media made for it yet, you basically need seperate hardware and software to create the image on the TV. Seeing as how consoles should do this without extra hardware though, hopefully it'll catch on some. Had this TV for over 2 years now, and have yet to make use of the 3D abilities.
Last edited by Zapix on 12/10/2009 12:37:46 AM
I want the 240Hz 1080p Samsung; mine is only 60Hz (even though it's still 1080p).
Yeah, it funny you mention it Ben. My wife outta nowhere wanted the Samsung 55'' 240hz led tv. I wasn't about to protest it because I could only picture myself test driving U2 on it.
So we recently walked out of Best Buy with one.
Watch out with the Samsungs having PS3 compatibility issues.
http://community.eu.playstation.com/t5/Technical-Help/Problem-with-PS3-slim-and-Samsung-LCD-TV/m-p/8851824
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&fkt=1738&fsdt=30311&q=ps3+samsung+problems&aq=6m&aqi=g2g-s1g2g-m5&oq=samsung+prob&fp=b36c7832dbb01be6
I've been using a Samsung with my PS3 for three years. I'm not too worried.
Sony's 3D tech for the PS3 will almost certainly work best with their TVs that are 3D enabled, i fact I would say that until there is an absolute standard for 3D video data across HDMI, the PS3 is only likely to support Sony 3D enabled Bravia's and perhaps other TVs that license Sony's tech. Of course, once an actual 3D video standard is established, I'd expect firmware updates all round and lots more compatibility.
@ Ben
How come you don't like the Sony Bravias? I tried the Samsung LN32B650 and it refused to keep my settings, but I admit it looked way better than the 32XBR9. Right now I am waiting for the 32XBR11 and what ever 32" Samsung has comparable.
Do you have a Fry's Electronics or Microcenter where you live?
Inside the Magnolia Home Theater section of Best Buy's circular this week, they're crowing about Mitsubishi TV's already being 3D ready right now. But prices start around $3000 for a 40 inch I think.
Also, nowhere in thatad did I notice it saying anything about whether or not you would need special glasses too(if I remembered the ad right.
Hmmm, Somewhere right now, I think Octo-mom's probably wishing someone will give her a free 8D TV.
(or at least 9 large 3D TV's).
Tried it. It was great. Avatar isn't a great game, but DAMN it looked good in 3D!!
i think wearing the 3d glasses will be quite comical ..elton john star glasses and and other weird shapes will be funny in the cinema!
They're nuts. A few gadget gurus will buy these things, the other 99.9% of the public will say "Gee, that's kind of neat", then take one look at the price tag and chuckle.
Indeed, the 'best bit' is that the active shutter glasses that most versions of 3D for TV use will most likely be sold separately because of the cost…
I want to buy one now, or rather I need to buy a new TV now so would prefer to get one that is capable of 3D. Anyway I am off to CES next month so will check out the different set-ups when there.
I just want a TV that does not have jaggies and pixelation when fast moving action happens. The 120Hz and 240Hz make the picture look artificial. HDTV still has a ways to go before being perfect (black levels, motion flow).
People need to stop talking 120-240 Hz LCD nonsense. Plasma is king. 640Hz and rising. 179 degree viewing angle, true-black blacks, cheaper than LCD and much better color accross all sources.
"screen burn-in" is non-applicable. It's not 2001 😀
I saw my first 3D movie last week, dorky glasses and all. If that's what 3D gaming will be like, sign me up. I'll wear the glasses, both my own, and the 3D ones. I'll be twice the nerd I already am.
PS3 strapped to a nerd.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/10/epson-says-eh-tw450-is-ultimate-gaming-projector-straps-ps3-o/
It's going to take a awful lot of nerds to buy the massive amount of S-3D TVs needed to bring the price down to a level where I'd be interested.
I am one of them Ben. I have a Mitsubishi Diamond 67" DLP that is 3D ready. I have yet to try it, but since Avatar is 3D, maybe I will.
Not me. I don't even have a hdtv in my house yet.
I just got a new 65" Mitsubishi C9 series DLP and for less than $1K. 1 cent less, but that's still a great value for any HDTV of this size let alone a 120Hz 3D ready 1080p TV. What makes it 3D ready isn't just displaying 120Hz+ but the ability to accept a 120Hz signal from the source. Most so-called 120Hz TV's can't. I already have nVidia's "3D Vision" system that I use with a 3D ready Samsung monitor. Only 1 of 2 3D ready LCD PC monitors available at the moment. It works with CRT's that are capable of high refresh rates.
If you haven't seen it, you don't know what your missing. It's already compatible with hundreds of games. It's PC only right now. I haven't heard anything about anything for consoles yet. It's really not very cost prohibitive for the glasses and I'm sure many here pay more for 1 monthly payment on their car. I'll admit I'm somewhat of a "gadget guru" but I'm far from wealthy.
I wear eyeglasses and don't have issues with comfort or eyestrain and nVidia's shutter glasses aren't super ugly. Even if they were, I'm not trying to pick up chick's at the nightclub, I'm watching TV or gaming in the privacy of my home.
If anything is likely to kill 3D movies at home it's going to be movie industry. They're almost certain to insist on some proprietary version of the technology they will control and keep the media cost at a premium for as long as possible.