Despite the fact that a whole heap of manufacturers are pushing to release 3D TVs for the home, and movie studios are pushing 3D movies in a big way, there’s still a big issue still to be overcome – what will actually be playing the 3D content? According to CNet, Sony reckons it could have a 3D Blu-ray player on the market by the end of next year.
CNet’s Pam Carroll spoke to Sony’s Yoshinami Takahashi, who made the statement. Of course, there’s a big difference between “can” have a product on the market and “will” have a product on the market, but the bigger question here is “should” they even bother.
Despite the developments in 3D screen technology recently – to the point where it’s actually watchable – there are still going to be a lot of barriers stopping people from entering a 3D-capable home. Things like the need for (stupid) glasses, the inability to show both 3D and 2D images (you’ll need a screen dedicated to 2D and a screen dedicated to 3D), the expense of replacing your perfectly fine 2D Full HD screen with a 3D capable one, a lack of content, the fact that a percentage of people suffer from headaches and nausea when watching 3D all make this a very hard sell. Especially when the only benefit you get is a some depth on screen.
Now when Sony decide to walk down the Hologram Blu-ray player path, I’ll be totally on board. But until then, I still think I’m going to pass on 3D TV in the home.
[CNet]
Chumplunt
August 13, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Excuse my ignorance, but why do we need a new blu-ray player for this? The TV I completely understand, but why can’t a normal blu-ray hold the necessary information? I would imagine it would just need a firmware update. Is there something special about the data required?
Report PermalinkTroy
August 13, 2009 at 2:36 PM
I could live with needing the 3D glasses, but having two seperate TVs is ludicrous. I agree that this point alone could kill the idea of 3D in the home. I do however enjoy watching 3D at the cinema and hope it doesn’t go away.
Report PermalinkNamarrgon
August 13, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Why would you need two separate TVs? I can think of a half-dozen different methods of doing 3D that work happily in 2D – for example, nVidia’s 3DVision system uses 120Hz screens which work great in 2D as well.
I’m also unsure why some people are so opposed to wearing glasses for 3D. Don’t they ever wear sunglasses outside? or prescription glasses or headphones or bluetooth headsets etc – it’s a mild inconvenience at worst, and the 3D quality is far better than you’ll get from non-glasses lenticular displays.
Report PermalinkKif
August 13, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Here’s food for thought;
The media and the medium are going to tell you constantly how good it is and how much more you need it until the next generation will absolutely have to have it.. always… as a standard.
The obvious death of piracy, as I can’t see a way to download a couple more sets of glasses for when mates come around.
Report PermalinkPatrick
July 21, 2010 at 5:08 PM
You do not need a 2D and a 3D TV to enjoy your TV entertainment. You can watch normal 2D TV on a 3d ready TV. I have a Samsung UA55c7000 3D Tv. when I want to watch a movie or media content in 3D I only have to press the 3D button on the remote. It is a myth , you cannot watch 2D media content on a 3D ready TV.
Report Permalink