3D technology looks set to hit the home consumer market next year, with Sony today announcing plans to sell 3D televisions globally by the end of next year.

Sony's decision to throw its weight behind the technology will be an important boost for the 3D industry, which has so far focused mainly on cinemas. British Sky Broadcasting has said it would introduce a 3D satellite channel in the UK next year, but it had been unclear whether there would be equipment available with which to view it.

More on this here (http://www.livetradingnews.com/sony-keen-to-back-3d-tv.htm).

Andrew

Actually, I know it must look like I don't get out nearly enough ... but here's a blast from the past. From the Dec 1998 / Jan 1009 issue of Australian "Marketing" magazine.

Interestingly, the mentioned web site www.c3d.com is still running, which is quite something in itself for an item from 10 years ago.

Andrew

Well Sony needs something to jump start TV sales, with that division reporting a 1.3 billion dollar loss recently (see: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/digital-video-industry-news/293290-sony-delays-intro-new-oled-tvs.html).

Somehow I doubt that this will be it, but who knows?

My only comment is Sony has got to get a few clues as to what the marketplace wants - 3D TV sounds cool, but they have to bring it to market with CONTENT or content creation tools... otherwise it's just an expensive "toy" (not brilliant in this economy...).

IMO, just watching how Sony is doing things, they need some new vision. The EXMOR "R" sensor is a huge jump in performance, and took about one year from unveiling to make it into just a small portion of Sony's released cameras. Instead of showing up throughout the line, none of the released cams have the manual features that would make the camera appeal to a wider market... emphasis is on "EASY", not professional... I won't even comment on the release of 6 new DSLR's with not a single one including video... and apparently none with the "R" CMOS either. Maybe next year...

......... they have to bring it to market with CONTENT or content creation tools... otherwise it's just an expensive "toy" ............
The content must be down to the broadcasters, but (as with HD) it's a little bit of a chicken and egg situation. No content, why buy the set? No sets, why bother producing in 3D?

In the UK, one 3D channel has already been announced from the main satellite broadcaster - Sky to launch 3D TV in 2010 following record Sky+HD growth (http://corporate.sky.com/media/press_releases/2009/3d_tv.htm)

For what it's worth I've been on 3 concert 3d shoots in the past month with 2 more planned for this month, you can't flip the tv on now without seeing that some movie or another is playing in 3d. I think the content is beginning to be put out there and I think that more 3d TV's will continue to further that demand. I believe that it will be similar to the adoption of HD, slow at first with a lot of people whining about how it's a gimmick and doesn't make anything better, until they see the sales, and in a matter of 3 years it will be insisted upon, maybe even in 5 years you'll be able to see your local news in 3d. On the other hand I really thought that HD-DVD was going to win the battle, so maybe I should just steer clear of prognostication.

I always thought it was going to be Blu-Ray because it had a much cooler logo. But I digress ...

Andrew

Can we really say that HD is fully adopted in the marketplace?

Is it time for another format upgrade?

Pretty soon it will be "ultraHD" with 4000pix

It seems like the manufacturers are going ahead with or without the consumer.

Most folks barely know what Blu-ray is or hardley care about the visual difference.

I feel like a curmudgeon here but this space has been a mess for quite a while now, is it really a good idea to add more variables?

A Newsweek issue a few weeks ago had an article on a Panasonic 3D TV which will be available very soon. No mention on price, but they guesstimated pretty high.

EDIT: Found it http://www.newsweek.com/id/211747

Yeah, great idea, lets throw out something new because after all, HD is now
so widely entrenched with consumers......so we better put out something
new so all those HD sets are useless and they have to buy new 3D sets
and some new player that can play the new 3D disks, and all the video
people better buy the new 3D cameras and computers that can edit 3D video
and oh yeah, remember to upgrade your NLE and plug ins to 3D functioning ones.
It never ends.........

3D support for gaming PCs on 3D TVs might be immediate. Nvidia GPUs already have software to support stereo rendering.

2010 will definitely be the 3D year.
You can display and create 3D (better say stereoscopic) content very easily since years.
Only now it seems there is a consensus about 3D movies in theater.
Recently we get several big buster movies (Shrek , harry potter, Coraline, ) released in 3D in theater.
We still are in an era where many tools are free (or very cheap), but expect the market to be locked very soon by some big shots.
A Zalman 3D monitor is about $200, you can build big screen theater with 2 cheap DLP and a pair of polarised glasses (about 50$).
Virtualdub is free, windows media encoder is free, Stereo movie maker is free, Stereoscopic player cost less than 50$, polarized glasses (linear or circular) cost around $10. Metallic screen are cheap too.
no reason to wait. make your family movies/pictures in 3D !

I just don't see 3D taking off in living rooms across the country anytime in the foreseeable future. Heck, HD is still struggling to take hold. There's just a whale of a lot of folks out there still watching SD material exclusively - even folks that own HDTVs. I live in rural Minnesota, and the cable-TV company out here still doesn't even offer any HD content whatsoever, nor do they even have any plans to do so (but they still charge an arm and a leg)!

I just don't see 3D taking off in living rooms across the country anytime in the foreseeable future. Heck, HD is still struggling to take hold. There's just a whale of a lot of folks out there still watching SD material exclusively - even folks that own HDTVs. I live in rural Minnesota, and the cable-TV company out here still doesn't even offer any HD content whatsoever, nor do they even have any plans to do so (but they still charge an arm and a leg)!

Ya, that's kind of what I was getting at in my own sarcastic way.

Here's one thing that probably will keep "3DTV" from catching on - people go to the theater to take a break, sit down for an hour or two and do something "different"... how many people are going to be sitting down in their family/living/entertainment/bedroom (wherever their TV is) and be able to sit uninterrupted...

Not to mention the fact that the average "installation" of a TV consists of finding a place to set it down... to get anything close to a "theater" experience requires a room set up properly.

While it may not be possigle to buy a non-HD TV, as Robert points out... the content and motivation to demand that content from the end user just isn't as robust as it really needs to be to put the technology over the top.

I see the improved picture quality, but I also see improvements in SD picture quality - it's fascinating to me that when you see a BR promo, they crank the volume and apparently processed the picture so it looks BETTER even on an SD playback device... rather ironic that they are trying to sell the improvements, yet are able to "improve" the results playing back from DVD... and I can always tell which channels have upgraded their cameras/studio equipment to "HD" - the improved PQ travels through the entire system, right down tothe final "SD" delivery...

Returning to the topic... while 3DTV is certainly intrigueing, I don't see the "draw" that will make a large numer of people run out to buy this... sure those with an existing home theater might "upgrade", but how big is that market nowadays?

If Wall Street can come up with a financial product that essentially would let me sell short on the prospect of 3D TV somehow becoming mainstream in living rooms within my lifetime, I'm there!

I just don't see 3D taking off in living rooms across the country anytime in the foreseeable future. Heck, HD is still struggling to take hold.
I don't think it's wildest proponents are suggesting that within a year everyone will have thrown out their HD, SD, even monochrome Tvs and rushed out to buy a 3D set - let alone that all broadcasting will be in 3D.

But all technologies tend to go through the same pattern. Announcement, demonstrations, uptake by the wealthy, uptake by early adopters, then they tend to reach a tipping point and become "the norm" for new purchases, but older technology hangs around for a long time after that.

HD is now well past the tipping point. 3D is still at the demonstration stage, but these announcements indicate that the "wealthy early stage" is likely to happen next year. It becoming the new purchase norm is then obviously some years away, but that's the way all these technologies have gone.

There is no way people are going to wear special glasses to watch TV. It just ain't gonna happen. Sony already has Blu-ray. How many technologies that people won't buy do they need.

P.S. Note to Sony - Drop Blu-ray decks to $75. Otherwise, it ain't happening and will become the next Laserdisc.

P.S. Note to Sony - Drop Blu-ray decks to $75. Otherwise, it ain't happening and will become the next Laserdisc.

I agree.

The time for "early adopters" is finished. If they want this format to gain traction they need to get the price of the players down to the Wal-mart level. Not just a few red herrings, but the majority of them.

yep...
While I see burners sub $200 (around $170 at Frys sometimes), and the occasional "refurb" player in the low $100's ($134 is the lowest I can recall), BR needs to break the $100 barrier soon and big time - big TV's have dropped substantially, I don't know what Sony's problem is - if they don't hit the mainstream soon, they will be obsolete before they reach critical mass.

I got a BR player on the laptop I upgraded, so I have SOMETHING to play BR - plays the BR-DVD's (BR on regular DVD) I burn in Vegas nicely and looks great, but it was something that just went with the laptop and was a nice "additional feature" - wouldn't have bought it otherwise...

At least I heard Toshiba is planning to enter the BR market... maybe they can inflict some payback for HDVD... and bring the prices down!?

for blu-ray sony is not in a hurry because after HD-DVD vanished, they are the only one to offer optical disc with such high capacity and with some room for improvement.
so , unless some chinese guy come with another cheap technology (rebirthed HD-DVD) they can wait few years as long the market is locked.
it probably cost them less to wait than to build and sell equipement at loss.
They also probably expect other to spend the money to build the technology, because the strong point of Sony is they got license on blu-ray disc, so they do not need to produce anything to make money, they are just waiting for the royalties.

Well, here's a couple of problems that will need to be sorted out in the meantime.

Innovation: The scramble to give TV a third dimension - tech - 08 September 2009 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17751-innovation-the-scramble-to-give-tv-a-third-dimension.html)

Entelligence: 3D may fall flat (http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/08/entelligence-3d-may-fall-flat/)

Currently we're lacking both the hardware to produce the content (none of which is currently available), and enough of the compelling content itself. Then there is a minor issue of yet another format war regarding how this will be delivered both physically and via broadcast transmission.

Andrew

I see the improved picture quality, but I also see improvements in SD picture quality - it's fascinating to me that when you see a BR promo, they crank the volume and apparently processed the picture so it looks BETTER even on an SD playback device... rather ironic that they are trying to sell the improvements, yet are able to "improve" the results playing back from DVD...

LMAO, so I have NOT been the only one that cracks up laughing at the local Blockbuster
where they have the big screen TV split screen, one side 'normal DVD' and the other side 'BLU RAY HD DVD FOR IMPROVED PICTURE AND SOUND....blah blah'......and yes, the
TV is hooked up to a NORMAL SD DVD PLAYER!!! How exactly am I seeing the full quality
of the Blu Ray HD disc again? It just goes to show that the normal 'man on the street' consumer really doesn't have a clue and it is all 'marketing speak.' I was in the local Walmart a few days ago and was listening to a woman who wanted to buy her husband a
new HD set so that he could 'watch football with a better picture.' But when I asked her
if she had Direct TV with the HD package......uh no, just normal cable TV with it's SD
picture. It's like magic, get a new TV and EVERYTHING is better cause it's an 'HD set'.
Man I want my 3D set yesterday cause it will make all the SD stuff I watch even BETTER!

so , unless some chinese guy come with another cheap technology (rebirthed HD-DVD) they can wait few years as long the market is locked.
it probably cost them less to wait than to build and sell equipement at loss.

Sorry to get this discussion off topic. But I disagree with your point. Actually, Sony can't wait. In fact, I think it might be too late. They don't have to worry about another disc format. They have to worry about internet delivery. In the end, buying physical discs to watch a movie on will be antiquated. Why invest in a temporary technology?

Also, successful formats require a critical mass. In all my friends, I only know one who owns a Blu-ray disc player. Blu-ray is not even close to the adoption rate that it makes sense for non-Hollywood productions to send out on Blu-ray. Really the only hope for Blu-ray I see is that if they drop the price to almost DVD player levels. When people's DVD player breaks, they might replace it with a Blu-ray player.

quote :"Currently we're lacking both the hardware to produce the content... "

Well any camera can shoot in 3D, and well two is better than one.
for display, it is even easier.
The cheap equipment to do stereoscopic movie will disappear soon, because people who wants to make money on 3D will need to lock the market. If the want to sell you something, they need to make sure you cannot et it for free elsewhere.

The nuview disappeared, and the 3D monitor from Zalman is phased out this month (according my usual gadget dealer). Probably most people developping free utilities will get their devellopment "purchased".
Don't forget that Sony does not only make screens and cameras and projectors, but they "own" probably more actors, producer, movie majors than anybody else.
The fact is like for HD, was is not shot today with the latest technology will not be redoable later. So make movies and pictures of your family in 3d, because in 10 years you will have content to show.

P.S. Note to Sony - Drop Blu-ray decks to $75. Otherwise, it ain't happening and will become the next Laserdisc.

Well I see a Magnavox Blu-ray player at WalMart (online and store) for $129. I think Blu-ray will make it although it will take awhile. 3d is another matter....

I think Brett is correct here.

Without the install base of players the format stays a niche format instead of THE format.

Right now DVD is THE format.

HD televisions have been pushed hard and the price has dropped a lot.

Blu-ray in my eyes exists but has not been pushed that hard yet.

I am sure they have a master plan I just hope it does not involve another format change in the near future!

Internet delivery of movies is where we are headed eventually, and probably in the not-to-distant future. It's simply inevitable. In the end, it's just going to be so way, way more cost effective for the big movie studios to deliver content over the internet, than distributing any type of physical media.

That said, if there is another (major) physical format, before internet delivery becomes the dominant distribution method, it will probably be based on flash memory. It just won't be that long until something akin to postage stamp size SDHC cards are at least as economically viable as optical disks of any sort, for delivering HD content.

Internet delivery of movies is where we are headed eventually, and probably in the not-to-distant future. It's simply inevitable. In the end, it's just going to be so way, way more cost effective for the big movie studios to deliver content over the internet, than distributing any type of physical media.

That said, if there is another (major) physical format, before internet delivery becomes the dominant distribution method, it will probably be based on flash memory. It just won't be that long until something akin to postage stamp size SDHC cards are at least as economically viable as optical disks of any sort, for delivering HD content.

I agree on both fronts, and they will probably be here sooner rather than later. (unlike 3DTV, or HDTV & BluRay being in every home). Downloading via netflix or so will likely be a popular option within 3-5 years. All people will be waiting on is a wireless connector to their TV.

As for physical formats, I think it'll be like Ipod's, only people will be able to store all their movies into them (or something like 10-50 movies). Just like a portable DVD collection.

The other thing worth noting is how great SD DVD looks when properly scaled. On my 46" 1080P plasma good widescreen DVDs look better then they ever have. I used to have a theater room with a SD projector and DVD scaled to 480P. On a 100" screen 1080P makes a big big difference, but on a 50" screen from over 10' back the difference isn't as huge (and what most users have anyway.)

So you have people happy with SD finally being displayed correctly scaled to 720/1080, you have them watching crappy compressed web video on all sorts of mobile devices, and Blu-Ray still costing too much for people to switch over. So now 3D? Unless some new technology comes out to make it somehow more enveloping I just can imagine people opting to wear specials glasses for the occasional effect to pop off the screen.

Is this actually news though? My Samsung DLP TV is already 3-D ready and has been for a year and a half... It's got a port on it for 3-D glasses, it runs at 1920x1080x60p for projecting left-eye/right-eye, etc...

Aside from considerable obstacles to 3DTV becoming mainstream, like format wars, getting folks to actually put on special glasses regularly, etc., there's a fundamental problem with the economics of production. How many films, realistically, would see increases in revenue large enough to justify the increased production costs (even if everyone on the planet had a 3DTV in their living room)? I know I'm sure not going to run out and buy/rent a crappy movie just because it's in 3D, and by the same token, I'm not going to pass up a good flick just because it's in 2D either.

I have to disagree with the naysayers who state that 3D will not go mainstream.

Sure, there will always be a segment of people who refuse to wear pola glasses "just to watch TV". There will be those who are hard-wired for 3D to cause eyestrain. For several years to come, there will be a price premium that will delay mainstream adoption.

But, unlike the SD / HD argument, where consumers can often not see a difference, 3D will almost certainly provide a "wow" moment the first time you don a set of pola specs in your local Best Buy.

This year's NAB was chock full of 3D LCD and plasma panels. It seemed that everywhere you looked, someone was hocking some piece of tech, and if it was even remotely related to 3D, they had a flat panel and a box of glasses to ooh and ahh over. It reminds me of about 6 or 8 years ago, when every Tom, Dick and Harry just had to have a plasma flat panel set up because it was the new, hot tech. Fast forward those years and now you can't hardly buy a TV that's not at least 720p.

In theaters, 3D versions of available movies outstrip 2D versions in the same market quite handily. There's a solid, demonstrated fanbase for 3D out there. And I'm here to tell you that polarized glasses 1080p is every bit as compelling as current theatrical 3D. Heck, it's practically the same technology - just replace your 2K projector with 1080p panels (not much of a loss). Of course, there are real issues with adjusting 3D depth for a smaller screen, but in time, it will become a known commodity and just part of the video mastering process.

I'm not saying that theater-going becomes obsolete, or that every show will soon be in 3D. Star Wars IS going to be remastered in 3D - that's a fact. The Maltese Falcon, not so much. Dr. Phil in 3D? Jeez, I hope not. But there's plenty of room for big event films, animation, concerts, and let's not forget sports.

If the long gestating promise of OLED or similar tech comes to pass, and manufacturing costs keep plummeting the way they have, adding 3D capability becomes almost a non-issue. And 3D Blu-ray is coming. I say give it another 6-8 years, and "3D-capable" becomes just another selling point, and available on most sets, players and cable providers.

If I wanted a 3D TV, I'd cut out the bottom and the glass on a 13" CRT, put it on my head like a helmet, and walk around town.

Just sayin'.

Sure, there will always be a segment of people who refuse to wear pola glasses "just to watch TV".

There will be a lot of people who refuse. The need for glasses is a big issue because it makes watching inconvenient. Not least for those people who wear normal glasses for TV watching already!

3D in cinemas is popular compared to the 2D versions of the same film. But I think going to the cinema is different to home watching because it is more of a one off event.

My own opinion is also that 3D needs a gigantic screen to be effective and to make it worthwhile. The IMAX films are great examples. Because the screen fills your entire field of view, aside from the frame rate it really feels as if you are in the film. You don't get that at home, even with some of the largest televisions.

A primary reason for 3D is to immerse the viewer in the scene. As it is it is just a gimmick that cannot catch on for a very, very long time, if at all. As others have pointed out there needs to be content, and the camera equipment to shoot it. Having to shoot with two cameras side by side is cumbersome and not in the least bit practical. If they could make a camera with a stereo lens capability then it would effectively need the processing of two cameras anyway. Think of the price of a camcorder like that.

I think that Sky are rather mad for launching a 3D channel. For a premium you'll have lots of the same programmes repeated over and over due to the lack of content plus the odd sporting event.

Then we have issues of competing 3D formats between Sony and Panasonic. Another format war, great.

What really annoys me about 3D is that the screens need to be capable of extremely high refresh rates. Why can't they put all that effort into something useful like achieving 200fps progressive scan HD instead? Then we can finally banish interlacing into the bowls of history.

What really annoys me about 3D is that the screens need to be capable of extremely high refresh rates. Why can't they put all that effort into something useful like achieving 200fps progressive scan HD instead? Then we can finally banish interlacing into the bowls of history.

I agree on frame rate. Also agree on interlace too but at least that has the temporal motion of the higher frame rate and on TV's like my 240hz Sony Bravia looks wonderful. To impose 3D on top of the juddering motion of 24p with the editors who think they have to use every trick in their NLE and keep cutting at 120 beats/min will make everyone sick very quickly. I was all set to watch what should have been a documentary on a construction project on Treasure HD only to find the editor choose to use a style more appropriate to a music video!!!! No I think music videos may have longer clips to see the artist!!! More and more of these programs have atrocious editing. Lots of technology not a lot of talent!! What will these guys do with 3D thrown into the mix.

Ron Evans

A feature of whenever a new technology appears is that most of the views expressed tend to be polarised, either "everything else is dead!", or "that'll never catch on!"

And most often the truth is somewhere between. When the telephone was first introduced in the UK (and no, I'm not speaking from memory :-) ) it was apparently the same. People were heard to say "this'll mean the death of letter writing within a couple of years" OR "never catch on - there are so many boys to run telegrams that what's the point?"

And the truth was neither of those. The postal service didn't whither away, but obviously the telephone did become of huge importance.

Barry Green makes a very good point. Unlike many other technologies (colour TV, HD, DVDs etc) it doesn't really require much of a modification to existing screen designs to make them 3D capable - it's not like the difference between a colour TV and a black and white. And as such, it would make sense for a manufacturer to be selling little else but "3D ready" screens within a short space of time. Sure, few of them may get used for such, but if it makes them little more expensive, why not?

So to the consumer, they spend much of their life as conventional 2D TVs, then at major events (sport is the most obvious) glasses are put on.
The need for glasses is a big issue because it makes watching inconvenient. Not least for those people who wear normal glasses for TV watching already!
Yes, I agree, and it means everybody watching has to wear them, or nobody. But for the sort of scenario above (where the television is used conventionally most of the time) I can see it generating enough interest to make it worthwhile.

If it really started to catch on, I can also see a market for prescription 3d glasses.
As others have pointed out there needs to be content, and the camera equipment to shoot it. Having to shoot with two cameras side by side is cumbersome and not in the least bit practical. If they could make a camera with a stereo lens capability then it would effectively need the processing of two cameras anyway.
Not necessarily - certainly two lenses ganged together, but they could feed an optical system which laid the images side by side on a single chip.
I think that Sky are rather mad for launching a 3D channel.
Here I disagree. The BBC had been toying with HD for a long time in the BBC, making some content for sale overseas in HD, but with little ambition to broadcast HD here. Then Sky announced their HD plans. Now look at it - with Sky solidly making the running. Sometimes it pays to let somebody else make the mistakes, sometimes it pays to be ahead of the game.

It marks them out as "different" and "innovative" and I bet their marketing people are pleased about that.
Then we have issues of competing 3D formats between Sony and Panasonic. Another format war, great.

No disagreement here. But it may be a lot less damaging than Betamax/VHS or HD-DVD/Blu-Ray.

Simple reason is that it's likely to be largely decided by what the main broadcasters do in any individual country. If Sky decide to use the Sony system in the UK, and you decide you want the ability to receive it, what set are you going to buy? (And vice versa if they chose Panasonics system.)

A strong incentive to be first to market.

A feature of whenever a new technology appears is that most of the views expressed tend to be polarised, either "everything else is dead!", or "that'll never catch on!"

And most often the truth is somewhere between.

I would never try to guess anymore whether a new technology will catch on or not.
So many times it seems to hinge on the whims of very fickle consumers. I have
no idea, what people will find to be 'worth their money'. I can only say what
I myself will or will not buy. 3D TV set falls solidly in the 'will not'.

I'm wondering if it would be possible for 3D to become the new "broadcast standard". Not for the quality of the image, but something by which the "big boys" can be far ahead of Joe amateur and his family video camera.

Imaging and recording technology (especially 3-chip handycams) has enabled the home user to shoot video that closes the gap. Perhaps 3D can be used to widen that gap again? Imagine if the news was shot in 3D and therefore it is more real and credible?

Just a thought.

Andrew

Good point Andrew, it's a possibility. Did anyone see the college football game being shot & shown in 3d?!

It was USC vs Ohio State & it was being shown to students at USC on a very big screen 3D tv.

Regarding standardization, SMPTE (Hollywood) is active in the 3D space. CEA (consumer electronics) is active, but has no published 3D standards at this time. ATSC (broadcast) took early action, but it has stalled. The difficulty for broadcasters is that bandwidth costs money, and it's not clear that 3D will bring in more revenue. MPEG is looking at efficient 3D compression techniques.

One can guess that the Blu-ray Disc Association and HDMI LLC are active as well, but these are private bodies, so visibility is limited.

The bottom line is that there is no standardized 3D ecosystem out there right now, but people are working on it. There are 3D products out there, but you have to be really careful that all the pieces fit together correctly. For instance, 3D can be encoded within a frame using a checkerboard, vertical, or horizontal lines. It can also be done from frame to frame with active glasses. If the source uses one technique and the display another, you won't see a 3D result.

I vaguely recall reading something several years ago about how the movie industry was looking to 3D to lure people out of their living rooms and back to theaters since 3D was something that probably couldn't be duplicated at home. Ooops! Now what are production companies and theater owners going to do?

And unlike Gabe Strong, if this technology takes off, I will buy it, provided they make it work well and price it where I an afford it. But then, I've always been an early adopter and a gadget freak!

I am surprised nobody in this thread has seen the Philips 3D lenticular technology. A friend of mine signed on as a dealer. He has a 42" plasma that has built-in lenticular 3D, no glasses needed. The 3D effect was astounding, it really was surreal. The 42" set is around U.S. $10k. 3D glasses are already outdated, that is old technology.

Problem is on the consumer end or even in the broadcast end of things, there is no standardization., you have dozens of competing technologies, different file formats, different stereoscopic production techniques, etc. It is the Wild West out there as far as 3D technology.

After experiencing the Philips technology as well as several 3D theatrical experiences, to me, 3D is a gimmick. A cool gimmick, but nothing that I think will leapfrog forward as far as being a must have for consumers, etc. I don't see it advancing beyond a niche segment for high end films and sports for many, many years. He has a bunch of commercials and 3D demos and while they are cool to look at, the 3D effect is just that, an effect. No different than having a Yamaha DSP effects unit in your living room for your audio system. Sure, it would be fun, but would having all of those cool sound treatments really be an integral part of your listening experience? No, it would still be a gimmick, an effect. 3D is the same.

Dan

Haven't Philips said that they aren't interested in actually producing consumer 3D displays until the format war has ended?

There shouldn't need to be a format war with 3D. Take a look at what YouTube have done with their 3D player. You simply choose from a drop down menu which format you want and the clip is played in the chosen manner on the fly. It will be the same with broadcasters or DVD/BluRay. The signal is encoded, transmitted to a receiver and then the receiver decodes the 3D outputting it in the format that the monitor or TV accepts. The user simply set the receiver to output the signal in the correct manner, even 2D if they want.

I am surprised nobody in this thread has seen the Philips 3D lenticular technology. ...... The 3D effect was astounding, it really was surreal. The 42" set is around U.S. $10k. 3D glasses are already outdated, that is old technology.
But there you are talking about something much more expensive, and something that is "a 3D TV". The point about the other technologies is that fundamentally they are basic 2D screens (at a similar price) which can be used with glasses to get a 3D effect. In other words, easy enough for all screens to "3D capable" (at little extra cost), so why not get one even if you don't expect to use it much for 3D?

Heck, you don't seem to be able to get a screen that isn't HD-Ready now, regardless of whether you can receive HD, I can see a similar situation with "3D Ready".

I think David has hit the nail on the head. In the UK Sky TV are now capitalising on the fact that many homes now have HD ready TV's but are not subscribing to their HD service. They are now trying to convert these SD subscribers to HD with incentives such as free HD receivers etc.

Sony already have a broad range of LCD HD TV's with 100Hz refresh rates. It will be very simple to make these 3D ready and for Sony only cost a few dollars per set. How much the consumer will have to pay is another question, but if I was going in to a store to buy a new TV and had a choice of a regular set for $500 or a 3D ready set for $550 I'de be inclined to buy the 3D Ready set.

As a 3D fan and producer of several 3D shorts, obviously I am keen to see 3D broadcasting. Even so I don't think it will be as main stream as HD until some kind of glasses free technology matures to the point where it is un-noticable, has a wide viewing angle and costs little more than a regular TV. Until then 3D is likely to be reserved for movies, high end drama, sports and high end documentaries.

.........if I was going in to a store to buy a new TV and had a choice of a regular set for $500 or a 3D ready set for $550 I'de be inclined to buy the 3D Ready set.
I foresee them selling the 3D ready set for more like the same price.

My logic:
1/ Gives them a selling point over other manufacturers - "ours is 3D ready!".
2/ Forget about the extra $50 per screen - make your money selling the special glasses. A household may buy one with the screen "to try it out", then everyone in the family doesn't want to be left out, so oh OK, we'll buy a few more pairs so everybody can have one.
3/ Kick start the uptake. So more consumers say "where's the programming?" So broadcasters see a demand - and have to buy the new cameras to produce it. Win-win for manufacturers making the 3D ready screens?