The glasses thing is a real dodgy issue. If you wear glasses do you require prescription 3D glasses? The distance between the eyes is also a problem. This should be a preliminary adjustment set into the set. I'll wait until the second generation pops up.
JJK

Can you expound on the "distance between the eyes" thing? I don't see how this is a TV set issue. Any setting possible on the TV wouldn't take into account how far the viewer is from the TV, so it seems like it's something you'd have to adjust manually and continuously as you lean forward or backward or move to another seat. At also couldn't possibly be set to accommodate multiple people in various seats around the room.

It also seems to me that it's not so much a display thing as something that would have to be adjusted with the cameras while recording the original image.

I can relay my experience from the 3 D craze in the 50s. The easiest was to demonstrate the interocular problem is with a 3 D viewer. You have the 3 D slides mounted in a cardboard mount. To view the slide in the 3 D viewer you have 2 adjustments, the focus and the optical spacing between the two images. I set up the spacing (interocular distance) to match my eyes and wow. Now I hand the viewer to you and you look in. Your eyes are under severe strain until you adjust the image spacing to match your interocular distance. Believe me when I tell you every one had to tweak the spacing. Until you have glasses made for each person it will not work comfortably. Oh yes, when you watch 3 D on a screen you can't tip your head left or right - more eye strain. When we projected 3 D slides you could adjust the spacing of the images and their verticle alignment. Since people were watching the screen through polarized lenses you could move their eyes independentant of each other tracking the images on the screen. You have no idea what that does to you.

Ed

Ahhhh, but that was because there were two discrete images that didn't coincide, so the optics of the system had to fool your eyes into thinking that they were overlapping, and yes it did require careful adjustment to keep you from feeling like you had knitting needles skewering your eyeballs. This adjustment had to be done individually for each person because the optics were inflexible and the images had to be positioned correctly in front of each eye.

That doesn't apply to modern 3D displays at all. The images already overlap and no such adjustment is needed or even possible.

And ... even if it were possible, which it isn't, or needed, which it isn't ... it would still have to be done individually for each person, which means that only one person at a time could watch the TV while all the other family members sulk in another room doing things like talking, playing scrabble, eating dessert, and in general having a swell family time.

Someone mentioned the glasses. Here's an article in US News & World Report.

That doesn't apply to modern 3D displays at all. The images already overlap and no such adjustment is needed or even possible

That is the problem the offset between the two images is based on the viewer's interoccular distance and not everyone is the same so some percentage of the audiance will feel eyestrain.

-ed

I am 100% supportive of the continued development of 3D-TV.

I believe (and hope) 3D will bomb as it has before.
It has been rushed to market by desperate manufacturers and an equally desperate Hollywood.
There are already too many systems and remember what this did for the original quadraphonic sound fad.

It ignores many issues that will impact on it's success.
The high cost of glasses needed for every viewer.
The many different types of glasses
Your friends can't even bring their own glasses unless they own the same brand.
Tough if you have unexpected guests and want to watch a 3D movie.
The need to watch the screen from an ideal position. No casual viewing.
It could be down right irritating for someone else in the room not watching the movie.
The fact that many people including myself already wear glasses and are acutely aware of the importance of viewing position. How do they wear a second pair.
The demographic of the buying public. Those that can afford probably are not interested and those that are interested probably can not afford.
It is OK for an occasional experience (for those that don't get a headache) but I am sure it will become tiresome once the novelty has worn off.
I have seen most of the offerings at trade shows and have not been inspired.
It is certain to be overused and abused by the movie industry which will hasten it's fall from favour.

I purchased a PS3 on day of release and even bought an X-BOX360 with HD-DVD drive. I have 2x 46" XBR8's and an XBR2 and yes they are pretty new but even if they were not I would rather buy another XBR8 than buy 3D and certainly would not pay a premium for 3D.
It is likely that the public will tire of it before it establishes itself as mainstream.
Hype can only carry a concept so far then it has to prove itself.
Malcolm

"I am 100% supportive of the continued development of 3D-TV."

I think most of us here would agree. As it stands now, it needs more development.

Yes I agree. It needs a lot more development.

I for one will not buy into this technology unless they can figure out a way to watch 3-D without any special glasses/ equipment. Until then it is just another fad.

MalcolmD:
Is there much difference between the XBR2 and XBR8? I have the XBR2 46".
JJK

I really doubt we'll see any new developments. Our understanding of stero imaging is over 50 years old. The latest tech is simply the implementation of what we've known for a very long time.

The next step is holography which is true 3D imaging. That does need a technological breakthrough to implement widely.

Lets not forget that our current 2D imaging is actually incredibly poor compared to our ability to reproduce sound. Audio reproduction is so good that only a very small percentage of the population cannot pick the real from the reproduced. We've got a long way to go before we can capture and reproduces images at anything like the dynamic range that we can see (20 stops), the temporal resolution (400fps) and the spatial resolution (hard to put a number on this, probably millions of lines).
In some ways the current stereo imaging systems aids the illusion of us seeing reality and helps suspend disbelief. I do have reservations about 3D TV and I'd have even more serious reservations about holographic systems in the home.
Imagine coming home from work, walk into the living room and someone is watching the news. Suddenly your in the midst of a firefight in Iraq and its almost impossible to convince your brain its not real. Thanks but no thanks to that tech.

Bob.

Hello JJK
Yes. I thought the XBR2 ( I am using USA equivalent model numbers for clarity as I am in PAL land) was good and the blacks were OK by me with the right settings and subdued lighting.
The XBR8 however is a step up. Even my wife can see it.
The picture quality is beautiful and the blacks are better without the excessively glossy screens of the Samsung and others. A bit glossier than the XBR2.
The true RGB back light makes the set a little thicker but I don't mind it has lots of benefits such as almost infinite range of adjustment and local dimming.
I compared with Samsung Series 9 before buying and it beat that not having the blown out whites and high gloss screen of the Samsung.
When Sony started discounting them at the end of the year I bought a second one for my business. It hangs off a Kona card on my Mac and also has a WDTV attached.
I figured this is as good as it gets and the next model won't match it.
I believe I was right although I got into an argument in a TV store recently with a ?salesman trying to tell me it was 2 year old technology and was therefore automatically inferior.
I think Sony has lost the plot a bit with it's recent models. It's about reducing cost of production now. Eco friendly, edge LED and 3D are their focus none of which impresses me.
I don't expect to want to buy another set for quite some time.
Malcolm

"I don't expect to want to buy another set for quite some time."

As I reflected on this, I was reminded of when I was a kid. Back then, in the US anyway, the TV commercials for toys always included the line "Be the first kid on your block to..."

Unfortunately, I think that conditioning turned some folks into consumer Manchurian Cadidates. For some, the Sirens' call to the latest, newest, shiniest, biggest, smallest, cheapest, costliest, etc., is simply too irresistible. This is not to say I haven't fallen victim to it, but it does require effort!

I just ordered a $17 replacement Li-Ion battery for my 3" pocket TV. It's been my primary means of watching TV for the last 3 years and will probably continue to be for the next 3. It's not even widescreen.

On the other hand, it shows red/blue 3D movies just fine with a 50 cent pair of red/blue glasses.

The TV industry must hate people like me.

"...for my 3" pocket TV."

Shhh. How will I convince my wife that we need to upgrade our old 20"?

I still remember the first time I looked into one of those 3D steroscopic viewers back in the 60s (when I was like ten). It was scenes from The Beverly Hillbillies, Jethro and Ellie May standing by a nude statue and other such stuff. I felt like I was falling into the picture. 3D in the movie theatre back then was nothing like that. But when I took a look at the new Samsung last week with those shutter glasses, I felt that falling sensation. I mean, you know, like falling in love.

Is there enough with the new technology to make it catch on? If I were to judge by my own infatuation, I would say yes: I would climb mountains and suffer migraines for this beauty.

Well, not every relationship makes it to the mature love stage. If Chienworks can make do with his 3" pocket TV, I'm going to look for that old View-Master. Do you think Avatar will be available in the paper disk format?

Tim Robertson

isn't good for your health....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/22/2880536.htm