Although Sony Electronics' chief marketing officer Mike Fasulo believes we will all be watching Eastenders in 3D at some point in the future, he doesn't think it will happen any time soon. Not on a massive scale anyway.
Speaking to BusinessWeek, Fasulo said, "We don't expect to see an explosion of 3D in the home until the 2012 time frame."
Avatar
Official trailer
3:16TGS in-game footage
Avatar
Official trailer
3:16TGS in-game footage
Age Restricted Content Please enter your date of birth below in order to verify your age before watching this video
You must be at least 0 years of age.
Play Again? Missed something? Just watch it again..
Watch More Videos Browse related videos and see what's new & popular
Share This Video Email this video, or embed it into your own web page
Sony is expecting to showcase "3D-friendly TVs and DVD players" at the Consumer Electronics Show, due to begin on January 7 in Las Vegas.
Who saw Avatar in glorious 3D over the break then? Did that change your opinion of 3D at all? Don't tell us the thought of Pat Butcher in 3D doesn't interest you.
And, it may not seem like it, no, but, the 3D image isn't just created by the glasses, it requires a certain way of projecting and I don't know if the filming/making process has to be specifically catered for it too, although I pesume so.
2012? CVG are making it sound like that's so far away, as if we were expecting it next week.
If even 20 percent of people I knew were watching stuff on a fairly regular basis (gaming, t.v, anything really), by the end of 2012, I'd be amazed.
Especially as you need to have a certain type of T.V for it to work, don't you? I don't think people throw out T.V's all that often. I know my family holds onto them until the bitter end, which is usually 10 years or so!
No need for glasses, this is the whole point of it.
Current TV's cannot force/deceive the human brain into thinking that there is a depth of field hence the need for shutter/polarising glasses. The new TV's have a second lens on the actual screen which uses the same method of deceiving the brain....basically one image is seen by the left eye, the other image is seen by the right and the perception is a depth of field...aka 3D.
To work really well in '3D', movies need this effect to be considered early in their development as quick cut editing, fast moving shots, close ups or shakey cam images don't work very well. This means the average action movie from the last decade or so isn't necessarily suited to being converted. Older films with less frenetic cutting, steadier camera work and a slightly slower pace could work quite well.
As far as new films are concerned we have, what one or two more in the pipeline. James Cameron took years to bring his glow-smurf movie to the cinemas. And I assume it's fair to say your average chick-flick or a very talky or higher-brow kind of movie won't exactly benefit (if any movie does) from this effect.
So in terms of movies to convert and movies coming, it's a fair to say we're not exactly going to be inundated with '3D' movies, and those that will be are likely to be action movies. Action movies at best can be very popular, but they're also very hit and miss. How many geniune fans of X-Men origins: Wolverine, or Terminator Salvation, or G.I. Joe are there that care for the extra cost to watch these movies in 3D?
So a new expensive TV is required yes? Possibly the need to wear some form of eye-wear? Very few movies are currently 3D, but fair enough there will be more. Hollywood clearly believes this is a way to take more of our money for essentially providing the same service. Only time will tell if we all rush out to see G.I. Joe 2 in 3D.
My other issue is every photograph, every movie and currrently every videogame (I think) is three-dimensional already. Yes, it's true movies and games don't have a cardbard cut-out effect like the cardboard displays used to promote some movies at cinemas. Seriously why are cardboard cut-out effects considered so special. If you want me to believe I'm in-the-film or game then provide me with a screen resolution so high I can't tell the difference between what I see on screen and the real world. False effects, tricks if you like, of which none of us have needed previously are now being sold as the best way to enjoy a form of visual entertainment???
Oh, and added to that for some people 3D/cardboard-cut-out-effect doesn't work at all and it's a known medical fact that extended time periods can cause eye-strain, headaches and fatigue. Has anyone actually considered how much TV we watch or how long the average gamer sits in front of a screen?
I've always embraced or at least watched in anticipation for new products or services that enhance entertaiment. But this...
As I discussed with someone else in the thread of another news article about a month back or so, there are 2 types of 3D TVs; one which requires clear glasses (instead of red and blue tinted ones), and one which doesn't require any at all, but the images don't look as good (I think might of said there's a 3rd type come to think of it but can't remember how it's different).
But yeah, the ones which won't require glasses might become more widely bought.
anyone who doesn't think 3D is going to become a big part of our culture is just a luddite. Soon it'll become the standard for many film makers and the technology will develop so that it becomes simple and cheap to create and watch 3D movies. Like it or not, its happening, and I for one can't wait to upgrade my TV to a 3D one when they are available for a decent cost. Thank you and good day
I've been looking at replacing my main 1080p screen I bought from the very first batch, but am holding off for now. I am desperately to replace it though, it really is showing its age.
I was looking at these LED backlight screens, and was told if I get one that runs at at least 120htz it will run two 60htz images when/if Sony adopts 3D imaging.
Agree? What would you suggest somebody like me do?
I have been rocking n vision for a while now and 3d games are where its at, only issue is the largest screen i could find was a 22 inch, its fine but half the time i play my games on a 40 tv, as soon as 40 inch 3d,s are released here im sold. and if you have not seen avatar in 3d go do your self a solid and see it.
Sounds a bit sketchy to me. How you can have 2 image sources projected to individual eyes, without any polarising glasses, with no crossover?
I've seen some screens in the local Xscape where they try to achieve a 3D effect using a slightly curved screen, which they are able to do - including different depths. But it looks like sh*t - lots of blurred edges and double layers making it look like double-vision.
If the above is the start of 3DTV, then it'll be a few iterations down the line before I even think about buying one.
Article is misleading. 3D TV will be on shelves this time next year. Avatar will have a 3D Blu Ray release to the new spec by Christmas. The Sony boss is saying that he isnt expecting the technology to be widely accepted in homes until 2012. Doesnt mean its not out until then. PS3 3D firmware update, 3D Blu Ray Players, 3D HDTVs from Sony and Panasonic and 30 3D Blu Ray titles - all by Christmas.
Also, you'll always need glasses to see 3D TV - technology isnt that far advanced and wont be for a very long time to be able to produce a 3D image without them. The reason why this technology is being harped about over the old red/green lens glasses is due to the fact you need a player with enough processing grunt to stream 2 individual 1080p HD images off a disc - the PS3 can do it, no existing standalone BD Player can. Same goes for the tv - its being fed two signals at once, and so new tech is required. 'Old' 3D is prepared and mastered on the disc itself, this new tech is processed in real time and fed to your face in full colour 3D, using polarised specs.
The other examples mentioned above are manufacturers trying to reach the holy grail but not quite making it. The accepted mainstream spec is going to be specs.
I usually pick up new home entertainment tech when it's new. DVD, Bluray, HDTV's, HD video projectors.
But this 3D tech... I've seen Avatar and Coraline in a brand new modern digital movie theatre, and wasn't impressed. 3D brought absolutely nothing to the enjoyment of the movie itself. Worst of all, the glasses were really uncomfortable and some fast-moving shots blurred so you couldn't see anything. One more annoyance is the out-of-focus backgrounds in 3D movies. It causes lots of eye strain and basically ruins the 3D effect completely. It isn't a window to a different world you're watching anymore. It's a shoe-box puppet show.
I'll wait another 10 years to see if movie makers really realize what it takes to make a 3D movie. Avatar isn't there by a long shot. The next movie I'm going to see in the cinema is the 2D version.
So at the moment I'm saying no thanks for 3D movies. I'm not spending huge amounts of money so I can see cardboard cut-outs moving in shoe-box stages at home.
I completely disagree with you there. I've seen a few 3D movies and they all seem to be 3D for 3D's sake, making things appear right in front of you just to show that they can do it.
Avatar's 3D was far more subtle, and worked a hell of a lot better. Apart from the odd jaw-dropping 3D scene (e.g. the opening scene where Jake exits cryosleep), the fact that it was 3D just blended in perfectly with the film. It felt to me like that was how it should be seen, rather than shoving it in my face shouting "LOOK, WE CAN DO 3D!!!!".
Reading up on it, PS3s are confirmed to be forwards compatible with the new 3D BluRay standard, and you can get it working on any TV so long as it can output at 1080p. You need special glasses and an infra-red emitter/reciever addon.
Where current 3D tech works by emitting 2 images over the top of each other with a polarisation at 90 degrees, this works by emitting alternate images with a total of 120Hz (60Hz per eye). The glasses then block the light of each eye alternately to match that of what's on the screen. I presume the infra-red addon is to ensure the display and the glasses are in-sync.
Sounds a bit unreliable with the infrared and having to have bulky glasses that are likely to be expensive, but we shall wait and see.
Went into a game shop and was looking at Avtar on the ps3. On the back amongst the standards it said the game was compatible with Sterioscopic TV. Now a few months back i can remember they showed 1 on the gadget show, and explained that how it worked was a bit like one of those fridge magnets that when you tilt it you get a different/moving image. Well the tvs supposed to work in much the same as the fridge magnet but rather than moving your head to block the image from both eyes at anyone time. It will block 1 image from 1 eye and Visa Versa.
No need for glasses with this, just a really enthusiastic cleaner as cleaning the dust out of all them grooves on the screen is going to take dedication lol.
Whatever......I just can't believe that people are getting Bluray players and then really want me to give them red and green glasses to watch Final Destination or some other s**te on it.
What is the point of buying high def if you're then going to just turn it into a green and red blurathon?
It really does seem that people just buy stuff that's presented to them the right way, regardless of whether they want it or not. All you need is a couple of gay geordies to tell you you want it and then middle england is rife with stuff that they have no idea what it does.
i just wanna check that ledickolas knows that the 3D their talking about in this articul is the one you get in the cinema, e.g. in full, normal colour. Worked amazingly in Avatar.
As for people saying games have to be converted into 3D which takes years its apparently very easy. Check out the Nvidea Vision, its been doing the whole 3D colour thing for a while, and its got good reviews, and 100's of games on the PC patched incredibly quickly. Checked a few reviews and one constant compliment was that people were not getting headaches which was a fear of mine. Anyone rememeber the Virtual Boy :S
I just play games like Uncharted 2 and imagine that train spirralign round coming RIGHT AT YOU! Novelty yes...effective damn straight.
I completely disagree with you there. I've seen a few 3D movies and they all seem to be 3D for 3D's sake, making things appear right in front of you just to show that they can do it.
Avatar's 3D was far more subtle, and worked a hell of a lot better. Apart from the odd jaw-dropping 3D scene (e.g. the opening scene where Jake exits cryosleep), the fact that it was 3D just blended in perfectly with the film. It felt to me like that was how it should be seen, rather than shoving it in my face shouting "LOOK, WE CAN DO 3D!!!!".
Yeah, it's funny, when I look back and think of the film, it appears in 2D.
Only a couple of moments really added to it, I think one where there was some sort of flakes of . . go knows what, raining down the sky, it really gave you a feeling of depth. There was a moment where you're in a aircraft of sorts and the controls are laid out infront of you, it looked fantastic. Although I thought it was better than being in 2D, it didn't really add to the experience that much.
The trouble is, the market seems to like to have one thing or another. Look at the format wars, there's always a clear victor! With 3D, it's looking like we're going to have some stuff in 3D and some stuff in 2D. I think if it's going to work EVERYTHING has to become 3D, which I just cannot see happening.
I know this can be easily changed, but didn't anyone else find it annyoing in Avatar that the glasses given, you saw in tunnel vision? You couldn't see left or right at all. In a way, it immersed you more to the screen, however, it felt a bit weird not being able to see those you were sitting next to.
I saw Avatar in 3D at the IMax and was mostly impressed by it. Do I need it to enjoy the film, no!
At times during the film I closed one eye to see what happened and it appears 2D (as I expected) and then I opened the other eye to see the 3D come back into effect.
I agree Avatar's 3D is subtle. In a few places was really impressive. I especially thought the scenes in the jungle looked great in 3D. However I can live without it.
It added to the film, but coming home and watching films not in 3D didn't really affect me that much. It's a nice addition at the cinema. But to have to watch everything in 3D would be a pain. Action films will look great in 3D, your average dialogue film not so much.
This is a link for a 42" 3D Display from the Philips WOW range that allows for multi viewing angles, and doesn't require glasses. Think its mainly used in the advertising sector at the moment,due to its pricetag of £7,299. But im sure that pricetag will drop in time when people see some product being flogged in a shop window via 1 and get the wow factor (no pun intended lol). And as we go into another world cup year, aswell as the olympics in 2012 im sure pubs/clubs might adopt this before it becomes cheap enough for all to adopt.
Ohh and it dose 2D aswell as 3D so everyones a winner
Did anyone watch that 3D episode of chuck at all? I didn't see anything 3D-ish what-so-ever. Same with Coraline- it just messes up the colour and blurs the background.
Didn't do anything for me back when 3D was being raved about nor has it done anything for me now. It's a load of crap.
I think the defining point for me was whenever the camera looks over a ledge into a chasam in Avatar you get an instant impression of HOLY F**K THATS HIGH, something you cannot get with regular viewing (as I realised watching the Top Gear bolivia special when the camera looks over the egde of the death road). The reason some 3D looks like cardboard cutouts is because (as with all bandwagon gimicks) they have bodged it using post processing (by aproximating the depth). Avatar is almost 100% 3D models which, as long as you put two cameras a certain distance in the 3D scene and render them both off leads to 100% acurate depth perception when combined with polarised glasses and screens. The left image is polarised horisontally and the right vertically and the corresponding filters placed in the glasses. The further left in one image than the other an object is the closer it apears to the viewer...or the closer right...I cant really remember
*The further left an object is situated in the left image compared the the right the closer it apears to the viewer (the more to the right the further away it seems). Sorry I suck at articulating my thaughts
This is a link for a 42" 3D Display from the Philips WOW range that allows for multi viewing angles, and doesn't require glasses. Think its mainly used in the advertising sector at the moment,due to its pricetag of £7,299. But im sure that pricetag will drop in time when people see some product being flogged in a shop window via 1 and get the wow factor (no pun intended lol). And as we go into another world cup year, aswell as the olympics in 2012 im sure pubs/clubs might adopt this before it becomes cheap enough for all to adopt.
Ohh and it dose 2D aswell as 3D so everyones a winner
I have seen this technology first hand and it has a special lens over the screen to achieve the effect. However, I found the viewing angle had to be off centre. When I stared directly at the screen it messed my eyes up.
The effect was NOT impressive. It looked 3D but not good 3D. As I said previously 3D Avatar looked good but I can live with out it.
I think the defining point for me was whenever the camera looks over a ledge into a chasam in Avatar you get an instant impression of HOLY F**K THATS HIGH, something you cannot get with regular viewing
I felt a really strong sense of vertigo too, not at that point, but when Jake jumps to grab that rope as they climb the Hallelujah Mountains. When he pops out of his cryobed at the beginning 3D gives you a really impressive view of the massive scale of the cryo compartment. It is these momements (and a more realistic 3D representation of everything else, rather than exaggerated 3D) that made Avatar a big step forward.
I have nothing against 3D, as much as I have nothing against gaming systems I don't own, but I have more reservations about 3D than I do most technological advances in the home entertainment business.
The initial and most important stumbling block has to be cost. No doubt 3D capable TVs will come down in price, but how quickly will be tied to how many are sold. I think the best hope 3D TV has in being adopted is if games become 3D soon and plenty of gamers are quick to replace their TVs. As only the Playstation is capable of this, the market potential is instantly reduced.
Something I've considered if I were in the market to spend a lot of money upgrading my set-up. If a 3D TV costs two or three times the amount of a normal TV, which would I prefer... One 3D TV or three normal TVs giving me a surround view? For me that's easy, and it's certainly not the 3D route.
Also, am I to assume what I've read about headaches, eyestrain and fatigue through prolonged use of the 3D effect is pure fabrication? Nobody seems to be concerned about this. How comfortable will it be to sit there for several hours with these special glasses on?
I think 3D will eventually have a small niche home market, smaller than the blu-ray one. I can't imagine it'll become the standard issue TV replacing non-3D TVs or that too many people will care for it. Everyone has a budget for their TV and I think it's cost that's determined the current most popular size of TV. A very large percentage of people just aren't willing to spend thousands on their TV set.
DVD is still popular even though it's been superseded. Some people still haven't upgrading to a large high definition TV yet. Plenty still haven't purchased a decent surround sound system (which is the most surprising thing for me, and still remains one of the best decisions in improving my home entertainment system) so there's still a long way to go before everyone has the best of todays set ups. And now we're being sold the idea of a brand new set up – an even more expensive one.
I think people are very wary of technology's constant reduction in price and the improvements in quality by waiting. How many people want to be the early adopters of first generation 3D knowing it'll be replaced with a better, cheaper version before long? Isn't this one of the factors that's made PC gaming less popular than the cheap and easy console route? I may be wrong, but that's not how consumers have ever purchased TV-related equipment in the past.
I can certainly live without 3D as most people I know can live without surround sound which I would never be without now. I have nothing against 3D and hope it sticks around for those that enjoy it so much.
Also, you'll always need glasses to see 3D TV - technology isnt that far advanced and wont be for a very long time to be able to produce a 3D image without them.
Wrong, the technology is already out there and is being incorporated into the Philips WOWvx TV's
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
