I imagine it could be more like looking out of a window, where nothing is going to be in your face, but objects and backgrounds still have depth to them.

I think games could be the main catalyst for getting 3D into homes, just as porn did for VCRs. I don't know about other people, but I don't have much interest in upgrading to 3D for a handful of movies each year. On the other hand, I can spend many hours on a good game. Some people will accumulate 200 hours or more on something like a Call of Duty, so there's not as much of a need for a large quantity of titles (even though the update will apparently make many games 3D).

But games would always have to be done with an algorithm that converts it into 3D on the fly, which will never look as good as a movie set for 3D.

Everything's already internally in 3D. The game feeds the graphics chip a list of 3D objects (technically millions of 3D triangles) and describes a camera. Then the graphics chip "projects" the 3D scene onto a 2D image.

This is my thinking as well.

Exactly. This is why it would be relatively easy to convert games to 3D.

Which is why it's wise to convert games to 3D. And it'd far more cost effective than converting to 3D a bunch of movies that were shot flat.

Well, hmm. I guess that's a good point. I'll just have to try it out, I suppose. Batman: Arkham Asylum could be pretty sweet in 3D.

You thinking about Harley Quinn too, eh? I wish she were real.

wgas, wgaf

The 3-D effect is created by viewing an object from two slightly different angles. As GHackmann mentioned, all the objects in a video game (or any CG animated movie, for that matter) are already rendered as 3-D models. But we only see them from one "virtual camera," which is why the picture looks 2-D to us.

In order to change that to 3-D, all the game needs to do is add a second virtual camera angle. The fact that you're moving around in an interactive environment really shouldn't matter.

This isn't far removed from how video games now can have 5.1 surround, in which specific sound effects will move through different speakers depending on how you move the character. The location of each sound is mapped in a 3-D environment. When you move the virtual camera, the entire environment moves with it. 3-D is the same principle, except that you're just adding a second virtual camera.

It would just take 2X the rendering power.

Why do you think that? There's already "3D Ready" TV sets that sell for around the same price as comparable sets, and the PS3 will have this feature added to it, so the tech will likely sneak into a lot of people's homes with no additional cost.

Why do you think being glasses-free is so critical? The use of glasses certainly isn't hurting the theatrical 3D releases.

How many 3D ready sets have been sold? Likely a drop in the bucket to how many LCDs are so each month. Plus they need additional equipment to make them 3D, how many are going to even know about that or buy it?

Maybe. However, you won't need to use glasses with the 3D TV for everything, only 3D content.

Last year I saw 4 movies in 3D in theaters: Up, Toy Story 1 & 2, and Coraline. All of them I felt were quality films.

3D isn't going to make a bad movie good, but it can make a good movie more enjoyable.

Aside from your prejudiced view of gamers, 68% of US households have a video game system. So that's a large demographic. If only 68% of US households adopt B3D, it'll be a rousing success.
http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2009/06...ay-video-games

Well, currently, it's a niche market. However, I believe the cost to make, say, a 120Hz TV "3D Ready" is incremental, so it's likely that more and more TVs will be 3D Ready.

For context: how many 120Hz TVs were sold 3 years ago? How many 240Hz TVs are sold now compared to other LCDs? Just because a TV tech starts out on a small number of sets, and/or starts out expensive, doesn't mean it'll stay a niche tech.

I did forget about the glasses kit. However, once B3D players are out, I'm sure stores will sell combo sets of player/TV/glasses, along with them individually.

Why would anyone spend 2-3x the cost on a 3D TV only to watch a few 3D programs?

All of those (maybe not Coraline) are amazing films that are high ranked on nearly every review site. Final Destination 3D, My Bloody Valentine 3D, Cloudy with a Chance etc. are not. Will people re-buy those crappy movies in 3D?

Sony's officially announced "Blu-ray 3D Ready" BD players:
http://hometheater.about.com/b/2010/...-pre-order.htm
http://news.sel.sony.com/en/press_ro...ase/56400.html

120/240mhz does not require an additional purchase(s) to use it, while 3D does (player + discs + new 1.4 receiver + possibly glasses). I'm still not even sure what the hell the difference is between 120/240/480mhz. This crap is just coming way to fast for consumers. They havn't even bought Blu-ray yet!

True, except for maybe the receiver part. It may be that the HDMI repeater on a 1.3 receiver can still forward 1.4 video fine. Many people don't use a receiver anyway.

However, my point was that more and more TVs are likely to become "3D Ready" anyway, to the point where it may be hard to find a TV that isn't 3D Ready. At that point, the additional cost may be considered minor by many, since the main cost would be for a compatible TV.

The refresh rate.

That's what the...blanking on his name, but the BDA spokesperson said. 1.4 handles it more gracefully, but 1.3 is capable of it too. I mean, if it works with the PS3 (which doesn't even have the complete 1.3 spec implemented), then clearly 1.4 isn't necessary.

It's not going to be 2-3x the cost though. It's going to be maybe more like 1.1x the cost, compared to another 120Hz set. From Sony's press release, the B3D-Ready players start out at 11% more than their cheapest non-B3D-Ready player.

People already rebuy crappy movies in 2D, so I don't see why having them available in 3D for home viewing would hurt sales.

And Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs was well reviewed, with an 86% on rottentomatoes:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1196..._of_meatballs/

Coraline is rated 89%:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/coraline/

Yeah, I don't know that stuff so it was more of a guess type thing. I read it needs 1.4, and I think most receivers are 1.3. Though, I do think anyone buying 3D early (i.e. first 2-3 years) would be the type of people using a receiver of some kind. No reason to spend so much on a 3D TV, 3D BD and 3D BD Discs and not use a receiver. It's as silly as people buying a BD player for their 27" crap TV.

Yeah, but how long until that happens? Will it only happen if 3D is accepted? It's asking an awful lot out of a group that are barely able to keep their jobs. I'm in the market for a new TV, and unless a 3D upgrade is 5, maybe 10% higher, I won't be joining in (That's a small enough price for me to give it a shot, but I by no means am anxious for 3D or even want it. GF really likes it though).

It's not going to cost 2-3x when? The street prices I've seen show them to be far more than what other TVs go for. Plus they can't compete with the $900 42". That won't be anywhere near 1.1x.

Sony $200 BD player is awesome. I imagine every other CE is generally upset with Sony since now they have to price their players far less then what they wanted or else they will sit on the shelves and rot. Sony can do it because they have a Movie studio. No other CE does. Good news for consumers, but bad for CEs.

Yeah, they buy crap movies in 2D, but the prices are typically pretty damn cheap. It's one thing to pay $10 for a crap movie on BD, but $25? (I hated Cloudy. Coraline was good, but not something I'd rebuy for 3D)

So if the quasi 1.3 HDMI on the PS3 can output the 3D signal, my 1.3a Onkyo 705 should pass the signal as well. Right? So the only major expenses would be a new 240 Hz TV and a shutter glasses kit. It'll suck if I ever invite people over to watch a movie cos I'd insist they bring their own glasses. I wouldn't be lending a nigh $200 pair of glasses to anyone.

I've seen it said elsewhere that 1.4 can pass the 3D imagery in 1080p but that 1.3 would have to downscale it to a lower resolution or be interlaced.

Hmm. Well that sucks.

Since we are upon the 3D age, with the two TVs released from Panasonic and Samsung, what are your thoughts? Are you excited? Are you more like meh?

I just went to the Sony Style store this weekend to check out their setup and was a bit underwhelmed. While the LittleBigPlanet video they had was pretty good, the rest of the live action stuff left me wanting more.

The "3D pop" was not there for the live action and makes me feel like this might not be the jump we are all expecting. Granted, this is only the beginning, and the tech is sure to get better I didn't feel like the leap is enough.

I'm going to check the demo at Best Buy today, since the store I went to had a TV set up but no glasses (pretty stupid I know).

I'll be needing a new TV soon anyway so 3D may be the way to go.