I wrote about a future I envision where people would were those “goofy 3D glasses” on a regular basis. Now it appears that I may have been a pessimist in my vision. Marchon Eyewear has announced that it has licensed RealD technology for use in a line of 3D-compatible sunglasses.
The glasses will be available through [...]
[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2010/07/hdtv-almanac-stylish-3d-glasses.php]Read Column[/url]
HDTV Almanac - Stylish 3D Glasses
-
alfredpoor
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:27 am
-
hdtvjim
- Member
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 9:14 pm
Stylish 3D Glasses
Circular Polarizing 3D sunglasses. I wonder if they will work with linear polarized 3D sets. I doubt it. If theater goers take their RealD 3D glasses out onto the street are these the same? Interesting.
HDTVJim
HDTVJim
-
alfredpoor
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:27 am
Re: Stylish 3D Glasses
Aside from reducing glare and making you look like a Buddy Holly impersonator, I don't think that the standard RealD glasses will provide much help on the street. And I would not expect them to work with linear polarized 3D sets (which are going to be very rary because they will cost more to produce than time-duplexed stereoscopic sets, in spite of Vizio's demonstrations).
Alfred
Alfred
-
alfredpoor
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:27 am
Home systems require shutter glasses
Yes, you're right that you need active glasses for home 3DTV sets. (Vizio has demonstrated a passive glasses set, but I don't know whether it's planned for production.) But the point of this piece is that you can use your own passive glasses at the movies, and have them double as sunglasses the rest of the time. In my opinion, it's a step in the right direction.
Alfred
Alfred
-
tsteves
- Member
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:51 pm
Ah! Stupid me! OK, I actually read the article. So what kind of market can this be? I'd love to have prescription glasses , but only if they would also work with some future 3D TV.
So since we can get decent results at the movies with polarized glasses, and they are trying to kill us with $150 a pop on home active shutter glasses, what the heck gives? I saw demos at ces, some good, some not so good. Does anyone know what Panasonic used in their big room? Seemed like non active to me, but never thought to ask.
It seems like they should have figured out all of this before pushing the technology.
Are most active shutter glasses going to use IR for sync, and if so, are they using their own special IR frequencies? Seems like a total mess if that's the case. Lots of PO'd consumers and real fun forum threads to come!
So since we can get decent results at the movies with polarized glasses, and they are trying to kill us with $150 a pop on home active shutter glasses, what the heck gives? I saw demos at ces, some good, some not so good. Does anyone know what Panasonic used in their big room? Seemed like non active to me, but never thought to ask.
It seems like they should have figured out all of this before pushing the technology.
Are most active shutter glasses going to use IR for sync, and if so, are they using their own special IR frequencies? Seems like a total mess if that's the case. Lots of PO'd consumers and real fun forum threads to come!
-
alfredpoor
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:27 am
3D Glasses Questions
Lots of moving parts here; let me try to tackle some.
For the current passive/sunglasses/prescription situation that I wrote about originally, this address the needs for moviegoers. It gives them a chance to have their own personal 3D glasses, make a fashion statement, use them as sunglasses, and have them made with prescription lenses (which means that they don't have to wear two sets of glasses in the movies).
As for the home, so long as the flat panel HDTV market stays as cut-throat competitive as it has been for years, then manufacturers cannot afford to put extra cost into their sets. 3D can be added at almost no extra cost if you use active shutter glasses; the extra cost is in the glasses. And consumers are happier about spending on options than they are about paying extra for the initial purchase.
Yes, some glasses cost about $150 now, but you also still pay a premium for 3D HDTVs (mostly because they are only the high-end models). In two years, 3D capability will be "free" in all but the lowest-priced entry level models. We already have companies making "universal" shutter glasses; if all the 3D HDTVs use IR, then it's simply a matter of programming for the signals, just as with a universal remote. Just as with TV remote controls, companies are going to use the same IR frequencies, because it doesn't make sense to pay extra for a proprietary emitter and receiver when the "standard" components are manufactured in enormous quantities and are readily available at low prices.
And there's a lot of under-used small form factor LCD production capacity available. As demand for the glasses goes up, prices will drop. I expect to see $50 active glasses in a year or two.
So my interest in the movie sunglasses is that it is an indication that I'm correct in my prediction that people would go for active shutter glasses if they were designed so that they could wear them all the time, and not just while they're watching 3DTV.
Alfred
For the current passive/sunglasses/prescription situation that I wrote about originally, this address the needs for moviegoers. It gives them a chance to have their own personal 3D glasses, make a fashion statement, use them as sunglasses, and have them made with prescription lenses (which means that they don't have to wear two sets of glasses in the movies).
As for the home, so long as the flat panel HDTV market stays as cut-throat competitive as it has been for years, then manufacturers cannot afford to put extra cost into their sets. 3D can be added at almost no extra cost if you use active shutter glasses; the extra cost is in the glasses. And consumers are happier about spending on options than they are about paying extra for the initial purchase.
Yes, some glasses cost about $150 now, but you also still pay a premium for 3D HDTVs (mostly because they are only the high-end models). In two years, 3D capability will be "free" in all but the lowest-priced entry level models. We already have companies making "universal" shutter glasses; if all the 3D HDTVs use IR, then it's simply a matter of programming for the signals, just as with a universal remote. Just as with TV remote controls, companies are going to use the same IR frequencies, because it doesn't make sense to pay extra for a proprietary emitter and receiver when the "standard" components are manufactured in enormous quantities and are readily available at low prices.
And there's a lot of under-used small form factor LCD production capacity available. As demand for the glasses goes up, prices will drop. I expect to see $50 active glasses in a year or two.
So my interest in the movie sunglasses is that it is an indication that I'm correct in my prediction that people would go for active shutter glasses if they were designed so that they could wear them all the time, and not just while they're watching 3DTV.
Alfred