AfterDawn: Tech news

Glasses-free 3D HDTVs should be reality by 2015

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 02 Jun 2010 1:41 User comments (12)

Glasses-free 3D HDTVs should be reality by 2015 According to Taiwan's Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI), consumers will likely see mass produced 3D LCD HDTVs that do not require glasses by as early as 2015.
The group showed off an early prototype this week, a 42-inch glasses-free 3D HDTV, with the company claiming it can make displays as large as 65-inches.

Stephen Jeng, director of ITRI's 3D System & Application Division, says consumers are unwilling to pay the extravagant prices for special 3D glasses, with many costing over $100 USD per pair on top of already expensive prices for 3D hardware.

Initially, the ITRI technology will be used in digital billboards and photo-frames, with some already available in the market.

Computerworld, however, is quick to note that the technology is still far away from being mass consumer ready, with images appearing blurry.

The global 3D HDTV market is still in its infancy, with an expected 6.2 million units being sold this year. By 2012, sales are anticipated to grow to over 30 million.

Previous Next  

12 user comments

12.6.2010 3:10

Personally I don't care much about the price of the glasses, it's just that I don't want to weir glasses to watch a movie.

22.6.2010 3:47

that means i have to wear 3d glasses on top off my own glasses . Plus i just spend 660 on a 50" plasma .and 3d tvs cost over 2 grand . Stick it

32.6.2010 5:09

I don't mind the $100 price tag for the glasses. I just want to know how quickly this technology will be integrated into games like the Call of Duty series.

42.6.2010 9:35

Originally posted by jasonx1:
that means i have to wear 3d glasses on top off my own glasses.

This is my problem as well.

52.6.2010 11:01

I don't care about 3D.
I like to watch a movie but I haven't bought a Blu-Ray ever, and I haven't bought a DVD for literally years.

HD content will do me fine until something with a higher resolution than 1080p is available. Til' then, I refuse to pay thousands for 3D.

62.6.2010 12:27

they still can not shoot off a spectrum of lasers to create a 3d image 2 feet or so from the screen??

72.6.2010 13:14

this is the first step toward holographic projection

82.6.2010 13:42

I can't understand the hurry in releasing this technology. Wait a few years. This is not ready yet. I would never buy one because of the glasses. Like i'm going to pay big bucks for a TV that I have to wear glasses to view in 3D?

I'm betting companies will lose money on these TVs, then we'll watch these 3d TVs slowly fade away....

92.6.2010 20:15

this is the first step toward holographic projection

No it isn't.

This is just a refinement on the old stereoscopic vision stuff that's been aroun for about 100yrs.

It's not even true 3D.

Holographic projection will be true 3D but this stereoscopic stuff has absolutely nothing to do with that.

I think people are being suckered into thinking what they saw at the cinema with Avatar will be possible at home.
That's ridiculous even with a 50" screen.

But right now the industry imagines - this time - that 3D is going to be big.
I doubt it.

Who cares if your soaps are in 3D?

Price is what kills it.
$2000 on a 40" 3D LCD or $2000 on a 55" 2D LCD?
What do you really think most are going to drop their money on?

102.6.2010 20:59

3D is, as I have stated numerous times, a fad that will die off quickly and is intended to be a stop-gap measure until OLED is more practical.

EVERYONE, including doctors, tech pros and manufacturers adamantly state that 3D viewing should be strictly limited to 30 minutes before taking a noteworthy break. That just sucks.

Glasses are a rip. Blu-ray 3D players are a rip at 400 bucks and the TVs are still fairly pricey.

AND YES.............OF COURSE they will sell 30 million by 2012, simply because all TVs are incorporating the tech into them regardless. Now.........the real measurable question is how many glasses are sold and the unmeasurable question is how many actually watch 3D regularly. I just can't see why anybody with red blood and an intelligent mind would buy into this.

Assuming you buy at Best Buy or Frys, etc 2900.00 for the TV, 400.00 for the blu-ray player and 150.00 (or 300.00 glasses kit) = 3600.00........all for a technology that will not produce a significant amount of blu-ray movies for another year....if even.

But, for all the easily duped shmucks out there and those that need to feel important enough to say "I have this NOW before ANYONE else" each his/her own.

112.6.2010 21:37

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
they still can not shoot off a spectrum of lasers to create a 3d image 2 feet or so from the screen??
Nope, and even if they did, it would look transparent, and difficult to see. Don't buy into what you see on TV commercials or even the movies. That tech is not what it was intended for in the first place.

123.6.2010 4:49

Yup...not even close to being ready, but the price thing is a bit overblown.

Yes, the glasses are a rip-off right now...but as soon as they are slightly more common, you will see them on ebay for $10 a set.

Yes, "3D TV"s are more expensive than non-"3D TV"s, but a 3D TV is nothing but a 120htz 2D TV...every screen in my house is already a 3D TV just because I buy quality stuff to begin with...and none of them were sold as "3D". The real issue with the price is that people are looking at the cheapest 2D TV, and the cheapest 3D TV, and not even considering the fact that the 3D TV is actually the best 2D TV that the company makes.

The PS3 is $300, I don't know why people say that 3D bluray players cost $ can get one complete with 3D game support for just $300, and over 10,000,000 people in the USA alone already have one. In fact, (ignoring price) you would be a fool to spend $400 on a unit that only plays blurays...most 3D content will be games.

Since I already have the PS3 and the screens, I will be buying a pair of $10 ebay glasses in a few months...$10 is about all this technology is worth to me.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive