Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Guide: 3DTV 2010

Guide: 3DTV 2010
By
3DTV Is Here

Short of actually jumping into your TV set, there's no better way to get beyond the usual two-dimensional entertainment world we're used to than 3DTV. Starting this year, companies are bringing 3DTV to a living room near you. The stereoscopic 3D-cinematic experience that's now available in movie theaters, will soon be available in your own home. Forget the long popcorn lines and seating availability issues, unless you’re the only one on your block with a 3DTV, in which case, expect the crowds to come to you.

Whether you’re looking for 3D sports, 3D movies, or 3D games, manufacturers are doing their best to bring you a more enjoyable, thrilling, entertainment experience. It’s up to you, the consumer, to decide when the balance of content types is right for you to take the plunge into 3D. What’s going to be the hottest 3D entertainer? It’s a tad hard to predict at this point since we’re at the edge of this new technology, but it is interesting to note that ESPN, Sony, and others are already betting that 3D sports viewing will be a major driver. 

See more See less
Display all 19 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    megan12392 , January 20, 2010 6:33 PM
    3D TV is a really neat idea, but I don't know if it'll actually catch on because you have to wear funky glasses and there isn't much 3d content out yet. http://www.3dtvinformation.com/ has cool information on it too!
  • 0 Hide
    camerone222 , January 20, 2010 8:46 PM
    I loved seeing avatar in 3D(the only way I could bring myself to see it), and wouldnt mind seeing some 3D sports. Now hopefully the price of LCD HDTVs fall due to manufacturers switching more toward 3D, I want to upgrade my DLP Samsung soon (my 1 HDMI input just died) :( 
  • 0 Hide
    Zenthar , January 20, 2010 10:18 PM
    My skepticism about 3D TV is in regard to the "30 ft" mentioned in the article. This means that for sports or movies, they will have to put the camera much closer to the action for an effect to be visible, you cannot just use a regular "zoom". To have a decent "3D" zoom, you might have to use 2 different single-lens camera and increase the distance between as you zoom (to increase the stereoscopic effect). This, of course, is a non-issue for computer generated effects because you can just render it from 2 points of view as you wish.
  • 1 Hide
    loomis86 , January 20, 2010 10:47 PM
    Zenthar,

    Ever use binoculars with zoom? There's no variable distance between your eyeballs.
  • 0 Hide
    cborg , January 21, 2010 4:20 PM
    Considering polarized light images could be sent and reflected off a movie screen, to be viewed in 3D with those polarized glasses, why couldn't an interlaced broadcast signal, like 1080i, be used to transmit such a signal to an existing hi-def TV and be seen by those same glasses?
  • -1 Hide
    cborg , January 21, 2010 4:20 PM
    Considering polarized light images could be sent and reflected off a movie screen, to be viewed in 3D with those polarized glasses, why couldn't an interlaced broadcast signal, like 1080i, be used to transmit such a signal to an existing hi-def TV and be seen by those same glasses?
  • 0 Hide
    dennisburke , January 21, 2010 4:28 PM
    OK, let me see if I got this straight. The only two technologies that we are going to see in the meantime are the active shutter type and the polorized type. Aside from having to pay more for the active shutter glasses versus having to pay more for the polorized 3D TV, what are the other advantages and disadvantages of these two types?

    It seems to me the active shutter type has more parts that can go wrong. Are any of the major players aggresively pursuing the polorized type? Will we still be able to watch HD content on these TV's without glasses?
  • 0 Hide
    steiner666 , January 21, 2010 5:51 PM
    60" 3D DLP TV = ~$1200 + $150-200 nvidia 3D glasses = not that much for a huge, full HD screen, let alone a 3D one. The technology works perfectly as is. Adding another pair of glasses or two isnt too much more of an expense. I dont mind wearing the glasses, much better than some hugely overpriced, gimmicky glasses-free approach with terribly limited viewing angles.
  • 0 Hide
    cammmy , January 21, 2010 7:21 PM
    cborg "Considering polarized light images could be sent and reflected off a movie screen, to be viewed in 3D with those polarized glasses, why couldn't an interlaced broadcast signal, like 1080i, be used to transmit such a signal to an existing hi-def TV and be seen by those same glasses?"

    Possibly, but would it not take 4 frames to render the complete 3D image? 2 to interlace into 1 complete frame then another 2 for the other part of the 3D image to interlace? If that makes sense
  • 0 Hide
    cammmy , January 21, 2010 7:22 PM
    Meaning that it would change polarization or shutter every 2 frames instead of every frame. On a 120hz TV would that mean about 30fps instead of 60?
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , January 21, 2010 10:52 PM
    not necessarily, the two frame each eye gets to see during its window are different, it will be the same as mono flash but clearer (less shuttering gets in tha way)
  • 0 Hide
    old_newbie , January 21, 2010 11:15 PM
    I think 3D TV with glasses is just an interim step and wont last. If 3d is the future, its got to be without glasses. Cant envision shopping for a 3dTV in a public store and trying on each display model's glasses (ewwww....)

    However, 3D may very well catch on with the gaming community for the duration, IMHO. I noticed it was the games that had the most impressive 3D effects at CES. Also, games lend themselves to that type of 'immersion' and gamers are used to dealing with peripherals (ie, the glasses).


  • 0 Hide
    SWAT23 , January 22, 2010 1:30 PM
    Does anyone pay attention?! I was sketchy at first about the whole 3d thing until I saw a couple of films. Now I'm hooked. It can only get better from this point on!

    As far as the glasses. Hasn't anyone seen the CES 2010 reviews and especially the TCL 3d telivision that got rave reviews because you DID NOT need glasses?

    I think TCL will pull through and win because glasses get annoying when you don't have to use them at all with TCL's 3D HDTV's.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , January 22, 2010 2:46 PM
    i remember that some yers ago(maybe more than 10)fox broadcasted some programs in 3dvision,as far i can remembe, some were married with childrens,the simpson a series i cant remember wich one, and even the news were in 3d!!!!...lol
  • 0 Hide
    cborg , January 22, 2010 4:12 PM
    cammmycborg "...why couldn't an interlaced broadcast signal, like 1080i, be used to transmit such a signal to an existing hi-def TV...?"
    Possibly, but would it not take 4 frames to render the complete 3D image? 2 to interlace into 1 complete frame then another 2 for the other part of the 3D image to interlace? If that makes sense

    Yes, that makes sense. I'm just wondering if the interlacing itself could be used to provide the stereoscopic image, so that over those 4 frames you'd get the entire image like this: left 1st half, right 1st half, left 2nd half, right 2nd half.
    My whole point in wondering about this here is to ask if we really need a new TV foisted on us when what we've already got may do the trick.
  • 0 Hide
    antilycus , January 22, 2010 5:53 PM
    Okay ready. First it was HD-TV, then it was HD-TV on DVI, then it was HD-TV on HDMI, then it was blu ray then it was blu-ray 1.3, then its blu-ray 1.4. Then it'll be HDMI2 and 1080p will be on the low end of the HD-TV's resos. Oh lets not forget tube hd-tv, to dlp hd-tv, then to plasma hd-tv, then to lcd hd-tv, to new plasma hd-tv, to thin panel led hd-tv. Oh wait forgot, HD-dvd to blu-ray to whatever is next (holographic disc? hhd-tv?). Yeah I am sure consumers are gonna rush out and buy the latest and greatest in tv technology. They've been treated so well in the past by the media companies relentlessness to never settle on a standard. Quick, here's my 2000 bucks.
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , January 23, 2010 6:09 AM
    there's no real reason that stereoscopic tvs should be more expensive - they are basically using NO new technology in using "frame sequential" left eye, right eye.

    imo, this is the INFERIOR technology compared to polarized passive stereo glasses but the important factor is that it's CHEAP to convert existing technology to stereo.

    ANY current tv that has refresh rates of 120hz now can be converted to a 3d tv - all you need is a synched IR emitter and those glasses and the new tvs are just adding the emitter into the cabinet and throwing in a couple of glasses. if they make conversion kits available, you can change a 120hz hdtv to a stereo one... whether they will or not is a question though.

    even if they don't though, there might be a way to use nvidia's 3d vision pc kit to display the frame sequential tv format (currently, the nvidia pc kit takes a single frame that has two side by side images and then splits them up and a halfhorizontal image for left and right eyes which are then displayed frame sequentially for lcd active glasses.

    frankly, i'm really really disappointed they aren't going for polarized passive glasses (same as the realD theater glasses)... they're light and cheap and look just like it does in the movies and no need to RECHARGE! and it's conceivable to stock up enough glasses for something like a superbowl party...

    but with active, it'll probably be BYOG (oh gosh and here's hoping that the glasses from all the different manufacturers are standardized and compatible with each other).

    jin
  • -2 Hide
    Anonymous , January 24, 2010 6:51 AM
    Those 3d glasses give you headaches after a while.... Need an example? While go watch Avatar in 3d... and you might as well bring some Tylenol with you.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , July 3, 2010 6:16 PM
    Think about it... if you put your finger 1" in front of your face your eyes will go cross eyed to see it. In 3d movies this doesn't happen although your eyes will try to react as they would in reality. This means your eyes are doing unnatural reflexes. Then don't forget the 3d movies do unatural things like have things fly close up that would actually hit you if real. There will people that will develop eye problems from this. Forget the tylenol to many bugs to work out. When I saw 3d Avitar I sat half way to the back. My eyes really hurt. I believe sitting further back would help the strain on my eyes... yes there are sweet spots even in the theatre. My choice for 3d movies is to see the non 3d version.
Tom’s guide in the world
  • Germany
  • France
  • Italy
  • Ireland
  • UK
Follow Tom’s guide
Subscribe to our newsletter