More

3D TV Manufacturers: Glasses, Screen Improvements Could Entice Buyers

01/ 6/11 12:20 AM ET   AP

3d Tv Improvements

LAS VEGAS — TV makers are blaming disappointing sales of 3-D TVs last year in part on the bulky glasses they came with. They're trying to tackle that this year by introducing sets that work with lighter, cheaper glasses of the kind used in movie theaters.

Manufacturers don't plan to completely supplant the 3-D TVs that require the heavier, battery-powered glasses, which went on sale last year for the first time. But Samsung Electronics Co. estimates 1 million 3-D sets were sold in the U.S in 2010, far short of its initial estimate of 3 million to 4 million, and the introduction of a competing technology a year later is another sign that the first 3-D TVs didn't live up to expectations.

LG Electronics Inc. was the first major TV to announce new 3-D sets Wednesday, a day ahead of the opening of the International Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. LG, a South Korean company, said it will start selling two models, a 47-inch and a 65-inch one, later this year that use the lighter, cheaper glasses. Each will include four pairs. Current 3-D sets usually include one or two pairs of the bulkier glasses; some don't include any, requiring consumers to pay about $100 per pair.

"We're meeting consumers' needs by eliminating some of the pain points" by addressing the 3-D glasses issue, said Tim Alessi, director of new product development at LG Electronics USA. "It's going to be the most comfortable viewing experience, just like going to the movies."

Vizio Inc., one of the largest sellers of TVs in the U.S. but not a leader in the high end of the market, which includes 3-D sets, announced in December that it would sell a 65-inch 3-D set with the lighter glasses.

The two types of glasses are called "active" and "passive," and each has its benefits and drawbacks.

Last year's TVs relied on active glasses, which have battery-powered shutters that alternately black out each of the eyes to create the 3-D effect. They worked with some high-end flat-panel TVs with little modification required, but they require periodic charging. They also darken the image and may make it flicker.

The lighter glasses, called passive, are not much different from polarized sunglasses. They don't cause video to flicker, and glasses from any manufacturer will work with sets from another manufacturer, or in movie theaters. They don't block as much light as the active shutters, either. However, they only work with LCD TVs that have an extra layer to the screen, and in LG's implementation, the passive glasses cut the resolution of the image in half.

Not all major manufacturers are on board with the new screen technology. Panasonic Corp., which along with Samsung pioneered 3-D TVs last year, is sticking to active glasses.

Paul Gray, an analyst from the research group DisplaySearch, said the dearth of 3-D movies and TV channels, rather than the glasses, was the main factor holding back the market.

"TV manufacturers really got ahead of themselves in 2010, and they forgot that a TV is a tool to watch content," Gray said.

DisplaySearch estimates 3.2 million 3-D sets were sold worldwide last year. Going forward, the research group seems confident that the content will come, and predicts the number of 3-D TVs sold will grow to 18 million this year.

Samsung announced Tuesday that it's developing 3-D sets for passive glasses with RealD Inc., which controls patents on 3-D technology. Unlike LG's new TV sets, these would provide a 3-D picture at full resolution through the inclusion of some added electronics in the set. Samsung didn't announce specific models or a launch date.

Further out, there's the prospect of 3-D TVs that don't require glasses, as demonstrated by Toshiba Corp. Tuesday. However, the image quality on these early models is poorer than with TVs that use glasses. The TVs also limit where viewers can sit or stand; outside those areas, the 3-D effect doesn't work and the picture looks fuzzy. Toshiba aims to have sets on the market late this year or early next year.

Sony Corp. said it's also working on glasses-free 3-D sets, but appears to be further from commercialization.

Glasses-free displays work better at small sizes, where the limited viewing "zones" are less of a concern. Sony said it was making a portable 3-D glasses-free Blu-ray disc player with a 10-inch screen. Nintendo Corp.'s new handheld game gadget will also have a 3-D screen.

Toshiba is demonstrating a laptop at the show with a no-glasses 3-D screen. It's not a first – Sharp sold such laptops in 2003. Toshiba's version improves on Sharp's by tracking the viewer's eyes to help make the 3-D effect more consistent. Toshiba said the laptop is a prototype, and has no firm marketing plans. Laptops and standalone computer monitors compatible with 3-D glasses have been available for years, but haven't caught on.

Sony demonstrated a prototype of another 3-D viewing system that's "all glasses and no TV." It's a big visor that covers the eyes, containing two small displays, one for each eye. Together, they produce a 3-D effect. Such "head-mounted displays" that present 2-D images have been available for some years, but the low resolution produced by the small displays has limited their popularity. Sony is using a new display technology, organic light-emitting diodes, that may provide a better experience.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST TECH

LAS VEGAS — TV makers are blaming disappointing sales of 3-D TVs last year in part on the bulky glasses they came with. They're trying to tackle that this year by introducing sets that work with...
LAS VEGAS — TV makers are blaming disappointing sales of 3-D TVs last year in part on the bulky glasses they came with. They're trying to tackle that this year by introducing sets that work with...
Filed by Catharine Smith  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 39
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Brad Martin
07:46 PM on 01/12/2011
You have to have content! Its not so much about 3D and the television its about content. Name me ten 3D movies that people really want to see and available to watch right now.
photo
PathofTotality
Regret serves no purpose
02:40 PM on 01/10/2011
All I can think about is the movie "The Jerk" and his "opti-grabs"!
10:01 AM on 01/10/2011
I think the 3d tv industry will soar though once the adult industry start to produce some good 3d pr0n...
10:00 AM on 01/10/2011
As much I love to watch 3d movies in the IMAX theaters, my eyes do easily get tired when I am watching them. I think this technology will not be adapted well not only because of the price (the 3d tvs are not all that expensive) but also because of health reasons. As it is today I am much happier to spend $12 on that IMAX ticket to see one of the few good 3d movies which I want to see a year, than replacing my existing 1080p LCD tv with a 3d LED tv.
08:46 AM on 01/10/2011
More people will buy 3D tv when there is more to see in 3D!
12:52 AM on 01/08/2011
Don't forget that 3-D means 2 images, one for each eye. That means lower resolution. It will be a while before we see 3-D in HD.
05:16 PM on 01/07/2011
i do not understand consumers and companies are pushing 3d tvs. i do not like 3d movies. they add nothing to the story and the tickets coast 15 dollars. no thanks.
to watch 3d tv you need to buy 3d glasses and they are not cheap. you just can not buy one or two. you need to purchase enough for everyone. about $100 per pair. i do not understand why you can not use the glass you get at the movies. i really hope that 3d movies and tvs go away.
02:15 PM on 01/07/2011
Those ridiculous glasses are the reason more people are not rushing out to buy 3dtv, only a few nerdy enthusiasts who likes gadgets will bother with them.
01:44 PM on 01/07/2011
Stuffs a waste of money and way overpriced for the effect. HD DVD all over again.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Brad Martin
07:49 PM on 01/12/2011
HD DVD had Blu-ray to compete against, but 3D has nothing. That's a bad comparison!
12:34 PM on 01/07/2011
3D has no use. I love the comparisons to sound in the movies in the 1920's. Sound has a use.

I believe no one really wants 3D TV.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andrew Wojtkowski
Physengrammer (Physicist/Engineer/Programmer)
11:23 AM on 01/07/2011
3D TVs aren't selling because ALMOST NOTHING IS IN 3D!

Stop making excuses. People aren't going to spend thousands of dollars on a TV so they can watch 3 movies over and over.
10:08 AM on 01/07/2011
3-D just a stepping stone to holographic TV which will be here in about 2015.
10:05 AM on 01/07/2011
Wow. These CEOs are clueless. The problem isn't "bulky" glasses. The problem is that nobody wants to spend a ton of money for a 3DTV and then MORE money for all the glasses required for a family (or more) to sit and enjoy it. Hell, nobody wants to sit around in the living room with those dark glasses on PERIOD. Watching TV with a group is a social thing and wearing those glasses takes away from that.

I actually think the idea of having a 3DTV one day is kind of cool. Guess I'm a geek. But right now the product sucks and simply costs too much money. Even making the glasses cheap like what you get in the theatre won't matter. Aside from people not interested in wearing them, too much of the 3D effect can hurt people's eyes and cause headaches. And from what I've seen watching these TVs in stores, the polarized sets (like the theatre) are not a good enough quality so I found it gets really blurry when there is action happening. Meanwhile, the sets that use those battery operated glasses that flicker are also a bad quality and I can actually notice the flickering when I have them on. This is EXTREMELY disctracting and annoying and bugs my eyes after only a couple minutes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
swlewis57
Working class, and proud of it.
09:59 AM on 01/07/2011
The picture is too dark, eye strain, headaches, having to wear glasses over my glasses, and terrible 3-D renderings of 2-D content. No thanks.
photo
Amadahy
loves peanut M&Ms and Whippoorwills
09:56 AM on 01/07/2011
I think the 3D tv is neat, but I probably wouldn't use it much at home if I got it because of the need for glasses. I wear glasses already. Wearing a pair of glasses on top of another pair of glasses stinks.

For me to use it at home, I'd want it on a large screen, 65" for example, and would want to have it to entertain others too, not just myself. That's not in the works for me anytime soon.