After spending a bit of time at Sony’s Bravia launch this morning checking out their new range of IPTV TVs, I also managed to have a bit of one-on-one time with their 3D displays. My initial impressions? “Wow!”, closely followed by “Don’t buy 3D yet…”
The entire experience was polar opposite to Panasonic’s showing last week – where Panny sat us down in a comfortable lounge, fed us popcorn and ice cream in a small, familiar group of people, Sony was showing off a whole new range of products, and had “standing room only” in their 3D area.
The TV being used to demo 3D was one of the HX Series displays – rather than featuring the 3D technology integrated into the set itself, there was a small receiver that kind of looked like a shorter Wii sensor bar sitting on the top of the TV. Apparently it connects via a proprietary port on the back of the TV, and comes with a stand if you don’t want to set it on top of your display.
The glasses Sony use are of the active shutter variety, just like Panasonic, which means that they’re battery powered and sync with the TV via IR, manually blocking each eye 100 times each second. But don’t confuse the fact that they use the same technology as Panasonic (and potentially other manufacturers) with the idea they’ll work with them – they won’t. Sony were quick to point out that their glasses don’t need a polarising filter on the glasses, something that’s necessary for 3D on plasma, and affects brightness.
The glasses themselves kind of resembled a pair of sunglasses, but felt rather heavy and a bit tight around the head. I don’t wear glasses, but I couldn’t imagine them fitting too well over the top of specs, whereas Panasonic’s effort seemed designed for this purpose.
Watching content on the Sony 3D display was pretty good. In particular, some 3D action from PS3 game Motorstorm looked amazing, and was a good reminder that there’s more to 3D content than just Blu-ray and TV. In fact, if it weren’t for my personal relationship with 3D and the subsequent headaches, I’d jump on 3D gaming in a big way. Other content included some zoo footage, which was cute, and some football footage, which looked impressive in the wide angle shots, and a little disconcerting when zoomed in.
However, there were some fairly major issues that hold 3D back at the moment: First off is the glasses issue – If I own a Sony 3DTV and my brother owns a Panasonic 3DTV and we want to watch some 3D blu-ray together with our partners, we can’t just bring our glasses over to enjoy the experience – one of us would need to own four pairs of 3D glasses. Considering they’re expected to cost anywhere between $150 and $200 a pair, that’s a bit much. Sure, the technical restrictions of plasma vs LCD makes this the case, but average Joe Punter doesn’t know or care.
Second is something Panasonic suggested during their demo. If you turn your head on its side, like lying down on a couch, while watching 3D on Sony’s set, the 3D effect disappears – it’s like the glasses have been switched off. Do it while watching the Panny, and 3D remains in tact…
But alternatively, if you watch 3D in a reasonably well lit room with the Panasonic, everything around the TV (like your walls, ceilings, carpet and Golden Retriever) will seem to flicker – an issue not seen on the Sony.
My point is this: the technology needs work. Sure, it will improve as time goes on, and we’ll see more and more content made available as well. But in everyone’s attempt to rush 3D to market, there are still some issues that really need to be ironed out.
Of course, this opinion has been made on less than an hour’s worth of 3D TV viewing, so if you’re totally gangbusters for 3D televisions, feel free to ignore it. But as soon as I can get my hands on proper review samples, I’ll be testing out the various 3D offerings in a lot more detail…


















Steve
Tuesday, February 23, 2010 at 3:22 PMInteresting to hear about the differences between the Panny and Sony, and the downfalls of each. I can see the biggest problem being not tech, but content: after Fox stated the other day that Avatar won’t be out in November (and presumably not in 2010), 3DTV has already lost its “killer app”. Avatar wowed people in cinemas, and is probably – at the moment – the only movie that could have people clamouring to experience 3D in their own home. Until Avatar (or a suitable replacement) is available on 3D blu-ray, the tech itself will be relatively inconsequential to the average consumer.
johnny
Wednesday, February 24, 2010 at 11:35 AMlike article said, it’s NOT only for movie, i would love to play 3D games and watching 3D soccer matches rather than watching stupid avatar, which has a boring plot btw
Casey Glass
Tuesday, February 23, 2010 at 4:12 PMwatching UFC in 3D would pretty pretty intense…
Behemoth
Tuesday, February 23, 2010 at 5:02 PMThat would be AWESOME!
Simon
Tuesday, February 23, 2010 at 4:40 PMHey. Given you suffer with headaches when watching 3D are you really the best person to give a fair opinion? I’m not being funny, its just a bit like asking someone who suffers from sea sickness to review a new yacht. dont hate me :)
Nick Broughall
Tuesday, February 23, 2010 at 4:58 PMI don’t hate you. :)
Even though I get headaches – I still see 3D, so there’s no reason why I can’t review it.
Steve
Tuesday, February 23, 2010 at 4:57 PMumm… porn?? heaps better in 3d, but id probably just keep flinching.
also active goggles are poo, im hanging out for displays without the use of goggles.
THE GOGGLES DO NOTHING!
Ollie
Tuesday, February 23, 2010 at 5:32 PMPersonally I think 3D is just a bit marketing gimmick atm, that has finally received a compulsive push from more than one company.
Just look at VR, 20 years ago that was the future, but no one pushed it hard enough. 5 years later 3D was a minor gimmick too… but now it’s taken off again.
Gimme the headsets they use in Caprica which put me into the world rather than just see it, now THAT will be cool.
Namarrgon
Tuesday, February 23, 2010 at 7:10 PMIt’s not so much a difference between Panasonic vs Sony, it’s Plasma vs LCD, so Panasonic LCD TVs will likely use very similar glasses to Sony.
The difference is, LCDs work by polarising the backlight, just like the shutter glasses do, whereas plasmas give off unpolarised light. Since to block the light for each eye, you need to get horizontally-polarised light and then vertically-polarise it, the shutter glasses for LCDs just need an ordinary vertically-polarising shutter, but glasses for plasmas have to have a horizontally polarising filter as well.
This also explains why the shutter glasses for LCDs don’t work when you tilt your head 90 degrees – now the rotated glasses are horizontally-polarising the light from the TV, which is already horizontally-polarised, so nothing happens. With the glasses for plasmas, both filters rotate with your head, so they’re still opposite to each other, and light still gets blocked.
Unfortunately, there’s no real advantage for plasmas here, since 3D video is always shot assuming that your eyes are horizontally aligned, as they are when you’re sitting up. As soon as you lie down, the viewpoints are wrong, and the 3D effect looks completely wonky.
Namarrgon
Tuesday, February 23, 2010 at 7:19 PMAs for ironing out the technology, I can tell you now – there will not be any dramatic improvements; not with the glasses, and not with the no-glasses-needed TVs. All the drawbacks you’ve mentioned above have existed for decades, and are inherent to the technology – the only thing they’ve been able to improve is to increase the framerates and reduce the flicker.
Stereo 3D without glasses will always require you to keep your head completely motionless in the sweet spot, at least until they invent a head-tracking laser that’s capable of accurately projecting separate images onto each retina. And the only way to make glasses for plasmas and LCDs compatible is to put a polarising filter on the plasma screen itself (which would halve the brightness even when watching 2D).
ozbear3
Monday, March 15, 2010 at 5:15 PM3D TV, you’ve got to be kidding. All those flash bang whallop commercials, zoom-in zoom-out, cut cut cut cut, and everything now shot in ‘wobblycam’. No thanks, If you’re going to sit me in front of that, you’d better put the throw-up bucket close by! KB.