You might want to take a different approach when shopping for a 3D TV than a standard HDTV. Instead of just looking at the picture quality, you should also take a serious look at the brand’s 3D glasses. Some show some clear advantages to purchase that brand’s 3D TV and until there’s a standard format for 3D glasses, each brand requires its own unique glasses, thereby locking you into that manufacturer’s products. Yeah, it’s a bit messy right now. Click through for details on all of them.
Samsung
There are three different models currently available. $150 gets you the SSG-2100AB with a user-replaceable battery, while the $200 set is rechargeable. (SSG-2200AR) There is a rechargeable pair for children priced at $180. (SSG-2200KR) Samsung 3D TVs come bundled with two glasses and a 3D Blu-ray movie.
Sony
Sony hasn’t official announced its US 3D TV accessories, but it’s probably safe to say that the Japanese-market versions will be available here, too. The standard size TDG-BR100 gray model, along with the smaller blue and pink TDG-BR50 glasses will sell for 12,000 yen in Japan. That translates to $132 USD. The glasses also require the TMR-BR100 IR emitter, too. (5,000 yen, $55 USD) Only the LX900, which retails for 290,000 yen or $3,204 USD, comes with glasses — two, in fact.
Panasonic
The Panasonic TY-EW3D10U glasses clearly win the “most radical” award. Each Panasonic 3D TV comes with a set and they retail for $149.99.
Nvidia
3D content can also be seen on computers with the right gear from Nvidia. The $199 Nvidia 3D Vision kit includes one pair of glasses, IR emitter, and connection cables. Additional glasses can be purchased for $149 each. Keep in mind, though, that a 3D-ready monitor/projector, GPU, and operating system like Vista or Win7 is also required.
This is why 3DTV will not succeed – who wants to deal with all the crap? Plus if I decide to have a superbowl party do I have to buy 15 pairs of glasses or should I expect my buddies to pony up $150 to $200 each just to watch my TV. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
I would kind of have expected that perception of 3D vision stops on action which is more than 100 to 200 feet away — so most sports action is probably not going to be much value add in 3D unless the camera is right down in the action — some motor sports could qualify.
I watched a clip of a Lakers basketball game in 3D at CES in 2009. It was amazing. Sports is going to be the killer app of 3D TV.
The fact that it’s only a little bit 3D is actually a benefit. The 3D TVs do well with low to moderate depth effects, but not well with extreme depth effects (causes headaches). Basketball on 3D TV, like basketball in the stands, is a little bit 3D. Except since it’s being recorded by pros, so you have the best seats in the house, every play.
Oh but it’s simple. They just expect you and all your friends to buy the same tv brand so that they won’t have to buy additional glasses when they visit you.
Don’t worry though. When Sony makes 3D glasses to make standard with every Playstation purchase we’ll finally have one tech to purchase. Err, you guys will anyway. I’m not messing with this nonsense.
$200 is not that big a deal if you compare with cost of optical correction specs or even quality sunglasses. Personally wouldn’t want my eyes wrecked by regular use of $2 cardboard specs.
I am honestly not interested in 3D until they do away with the glasses. And my 7 year old daughter has decided not to see a couple movies in the theaters because they are 3d. I wanted to go, and she said not if she has to wear those glasses.
The sad thing is that the better picture quality TVs are only 3D, so if you want good picture quality, you have to get 3d, and then the marketing people will say “Look! everyone wants 3d!” – Not true!!!
I’m not interested in 3D, before they do away with the monitors/screens. :) I so wish companies/universities/goverments could see the potential of eyewear displays, so we could have real development in them.
“I so wish companies/universities/goverments could see the potential of eyewear displays”
+ above 9000
The way 3D works is that one eye sees one thing and the other sees another, almost simultaneously in this case, in theaters it does it by polarizing the glasses and has a special lens or two projectors that show different images that one side of the glasses can see and the other can’t. The reason that these are so expensive is because they are actively changing which eye can see the image on the screen within a fraction of a second. But anyways, 3D can never exist without something over our eyes, so glasses seem to be the most viable option.
Sir, maybe you should check Philips solution in your spare time.
You carn’t watch 3D without glass that’s why u have them, Think before speak
Don’t get it… what’s the “battery” stuff come in around the glasses? Don’t seem to need that in the cinema — is the technology not just polarized light?
In that case the only differences from one set of glasses should be the orientation of each eye piece.
I see an upcoming market in “universal 3d” glasses where you basically can just turn the lens for each eye as you do on a polarized filter on a camera
Soren, the technology is different than polarized 3d. The 3D TV will show you twice the number of frames per second, alternating between left eye and right eye. The glasses syncs with the TV and changes the color of each glass on the eye dynamically between light and dark. So one eye sees every odd frame while the other sees every even frame.
Wow — Didn’t realize — kind of an very over engineered way of doing something simple — but also a great way to make lots of money on selling the $200 pair glasses.
I can see this going horrible wrong — a pair of defect glasses can sync wrongly — so how long before you see a repeat of the cell-phone-brain-damage-law-suit?
“Judge my glasses were defect, and after using them for 3 years,
a) I have been diagnosed with …
b) can not longer drive my car
c) Gone bind….”
Or whatever reason people uses these days to get money out from product defects.
No. Theater 3D is done by using two projectors, each with differently polarized light. Each eye in the glasses uses a polarization filter so that eye only sees light from one of the projectors.
3D TV sets don’t have the luxury of having two light sources; each pixel is just RGB. The set alternates left/right images very quickly, and LCD shutters in the glasses open and close to filter out the “wrong” light for each eye. Hence the battery.
While theoretically you could double the number of pixels on the display and polarize them, or have two layers of OLED, all current sets use active glasses and switching rather than overlaid images.
Yea, it needs a battery because its NOT separating the images with polarization like a movie theater. The theater does it by having essentially 2 projectors with the lenses on each polarized in opposite directions. You can’t polarize the image on a TV because its a direct view screen, and there’s no way to “flip” the polarization 120 times a second, which is what would be required.
The solution is just to have the normal image on the screen, with unpolarized light, but alternate the left-eye and right-eye images at 120hz while the glasses black out your right and left eye in alternating fashion so each eye only sees the image intended for it.
That’s accomplished via LCD shutters in the lenses with 120hz refresh rates that go black and clear quickly, hence the batteries, and likely relatively heavy weight (comfort?). Its synced to the TV refresh via an IR transmitter (so if you turned your head you would lose sync? Worth wondering about)
Some of the 3D technologies use polarized light.
Polarized light means that your glasses are passive and don’t need a battery. It also tends to mean that half the pixels are used for the left-eye image, and half for the right, meaning the total 3D image is lower resolution overall
Others actually flicker between the left-eye view and the right-eye view, and the glasses block out each eye in sync with the television, but each eye recieves a full-resolution image.
It’s easier to make a television flicker between two images, though, and for that, you’re going to need active-shutter powered glasses that recieve signals from the television.
It’s prossible to build TVs that don’t require glasses to view 3D images, but to the best of my knowledge, they’re /very/ dependent on viewing position at this stage.
Wow, four well thought-out, helpful replies with the actual information asked for, all posted at roughly the same time? And no inane “Are you stupid” responses to boot!
Well done TC readers! 8-)
I was thinking the same thing
haha
Agree thanks for the nice descriptions.
Am I the only one who is skeptical about the results using alternating glasses? It seems to me that being slightly out of sync could be disastrous. I see that all the manufacturers use some sort of syncing system, but how well can that really work?
Polarized glasses would be insanely cheap compared to this. People wouldn’t mind buying so many pairs for guests if they were only $2 a piece.
In my opinion until they can figure out a way to make the polarized light setup work on TVs I think most people will stay out of this mess.
I was happy to see this amount of constructive comments as well.
I’m certainly skeptical on the alternative switching will be “healthy” as well — however many people didn’t think that you could survive speeds over 30mph when trains first came out.
I guess we will have to see whether this is just a generation one of 3D — and that this will be defunt as a technology in 3-5 years and replaced with a version two doing the polarized interlacing of the display cells.
I see no reason for why viewing-angle should be obstacle to that — true you can manufacture displays which have bad properties — some of the old style back projection TV have the issue, and so did the first generation laptop LCD screens.
Density of cells should not really be a problem either — my 28inch desktop screen have twice the resolution of my 50inch TV.
So I think the whole decision is made based on perceived-cost — that is it is easier to sell a 3D solution which cost $2000+2x$200 + optional 4x$200 extra glasses — than it is to sell a polarized light TV for $3000 + 10x$2
This isn’t an “are you stupid” response, but more of a point-of-fact:
The 3D in the movie theaters doesn’t actually have 2 projectors, just one. Additionally, the effect is the same as the powered-glasses… only one eye is seeing a frame at a time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealD_Cinema#Technology
How about designing a pair for people with glasses…. we watch tv too!
I have tried the sony glasses at the Sony store and they fit over your regular glasses quite comfortably…
I was wondering this too and thought that they kind of look like the Solar Shield sunglasses that fit over regular glasses. Glad to hear it, especially when talking about $150-$200 per set!
@Karl_S no way. you can buy plenty of good TVs without 3D. In fact, there’s onyl a few tv sets out there that have the future compatibility with 3D, but the general market is not 3D and until you see 3D on blu-ray/dvd, available over standard cable, etc. it’s really going to take a while to hit mainstream. In the meantime people will still be buying std “2D” TVs.
Also, wondering abou the feasibility of 3D without glasses. You’d have to wait a long time for holographic technologies to come around before that, I think.
It is possible, but only from restricted angles.
Basically the screen has double the resolution from side to side, each alternating pixel from left to right show the right image and every other pixel shows the left image. Then a special mouled plastic is lined up with the pixels refracting the light slightly either way.
Problem is it only works with in a few degrees from straight on to the screen, not so great for a lounge room.
While I can’t speak of all other manufacturers, according to an email directly from Panasonic, the Panasonic V10 is replaced by the VT25, which is a 3D model. The non-3D models from Panasonic, the G20, are based on the G10.
I worked at a studio that had an autostereo display…it is awesome. Works best from a straight on angle but also works from the side…no more angle issue than an old projection TV.
Glasses are much improved on the old cardboard frames with the green and red lenses !
There’re not the only thing that may stop people taking up 3D TV though. Are people really going to shell out more money for a new TV after having only just brought and HD Ready TV ?
http://www.trimr.de/8eg
Capitalism at its finest!
how about some clip-on type for people who don’t want to wear 2 pair of glasses.
BTW, when watching 3d movies in the theater, you get those cheapo glasses that slide off my face since I wear prescription glasses and they weren’t really designed for it.
Is there a place to buy these polarized 3d glasses for movie theaters, but that works with prescription glasses and I can just take them with me to the theater? preferably something w/ a hard lens filter and not that cellophane feeling stuff that you get in theater
Actually, Disneyland gives out the exact kind of glasses you’re talking about on some of their 3D attractions. They have solid plastic lenses with rounded plastic frames that fit over most standard glasses quite well. I have no idea where they purchase them from, but chances are they can be found somewhere online.
What I don’t understand is the purpose of the infrared emitter and why one manufacturer’s glasses will not work on all 3DTVs. I mean they’re all alternating images at 120Hz, right?
Is there any published research on the effects of this rapid switching of visible scenes? I mean, before the GF lets me have one of these, I need to know that my buddies aren’t gonna get sick on her new couch :-)
Seriously, there could be all sorts of neurological issues, for example with epileptics. I’m sure it’s been considered, but I haven’t seen anything in the press.
You already have rapid switching of visible scenes today — your TV does that 25 times per sec, and when you go to the cinema you see a rapid sequence of 24 frames per seconds which your brain interpret as one smooth moving picture.
From top of my head — I believe that your brain works at round the equivalent of 10 hz — which means that anything faster will not be interpreted by your brain as individual pictures, and anything slower will look jerky.
You can observe this yourself on low end WebCams which is does about 5 to 10 frames per sec.
Given the frame rate of these things looks like being 50 or 100 frames per sec, then your brain should in theory not be able to tell that the pictures are alternating.
However I still suspect this to be a generation one, and most people should wait for generation two.
I’m not so sure – I expect there’s a material difference when you’re talking about a once-per-frame total blackout of each eye, especially alternating them at twice that rate. Early VR headsets had all sorts of nauseating effects due to optical effects,
Still, I suspect as you do – this technology won’t be around all that long.
Why come in the movie theatres there are just cheap plastic glasses. How at house you need expensie batery ones?
Why can’t they do what they did there……over here?
Autostereoscopic screens (No Glasses Required) are great, but hang-up today on two significant problems. They need a lenticular lens or parallax barrier to devide the left eye image from right eye view. This means you get less than 50% (often a lot less) horizontal resolution than the HD screen used at the back of the barrier/lens.
As for cost, adding the lens or barrier adds about 200% to the price of the basic screen, so instead of a $3000 screen with a $500 hike for Glasses and IR emitters, You get a $9000 screen which no one buys and hence no market for home 3D content.
As James Cameron rightly said, Glasses-Free 3D TV at home is about 4-5 years off (A whole retail generation and more).
It will take the ready availability of cheap 4K or higher reolution screens and optimsed construction techniques (Grow in Place for the barrier/lens) for this to happen.
Do not want.
Some manufacturers are making TV’s that use passive polarization – e.g., the same method used in RealD theaters, which means that you can use the same glasses. JVC is one such manufacturer, LG is another. I believe LG TV’s were installed in pubs in the UK when they broadcast the Man U/Arsenal match in 3D a few weeks ago. The Indian Premier Cricket League is also installing them in pubs and bars in India for their upcoming broadcast of their finals in 3D.
Sadly glasses based 3D will fail bigtime. Home stereoscopics will not become popular at all until AutoStereo displays start hitting homes.
I personally wouldn’t waste my time….I hate sitting in a theater with glasses…no way I would do it at home.
What you guys dont understand is 3d without glasses is possible but only if your sitting in the exact right spot. . . so its either be able to watch your tv with glasses on from anywhere or have to stay in the optimal viewing area without the glasses. i dont understand why so many people think 3d tv is a fail just because they dont want to have to wear glasses for one reason or another.
Thank god these people were born with decent eye sight I’ld hate to see someone get hit by a car because they didnt want to wear glasses.
It’s easier to make a television flicker between two images, though, and for that, you’re going to need active-shutter powered glasses that recieve signals from the television.
What happens if you only have one working eye?
The bar I work in should be getting a 3D TV by this Saturday so I just had a look to see what I could about 3D television, it doesn’t look too promising so far, with IR glasses, isn’t there a possiblity of interference from any other IR devices?