3 ms·

I don't see how Sony are any different from other players in these areas. In fact they are probably closer to having content answers than most. From a technica

I don't see how Sony are any different from other players in these areas. In fact they are probably closer to having content answers than most. From a technical point of view there was no "big bet" on 3D. It is almost a software change provided the TV is capable of a high framerate. The marketing bet wasn't that big either it was just the obvious focus of the budget that year and could also be a cross category approach (some camcorders and still cameras can do 3D). 4K is a bigger more expensive technical change but what is the alternative? How much profit do you think there is in $500 50" TVs? After 30% retail margin? You are mostly not wrong but it is a TV industry issue not a particularly Sony one. Ex Sony TV Product Planner.

ctdonath 13y ago
It is almost a software change provided the TV is capable of a high framerate. Alas, Sony et al made it a hardware issue, requiring re-purchase of recently-purchased HD hardware and requiring the most expensive & annoying forms where possible (battery-powered high-price easily-lost/broken glasses). This when a relatively cheap polarizing overlay with passive glasses (heck, contacts even) would have made it a no-brainer upgrade.
- josephlord 13y ago
  Polarsising screens would have had greater cost increase on the TV. Your complaint seems to be that they didn't go all in an put the cost in the TV. The Active glasses can fit over normal glasses. The first year the glasses had button batteries, after that they were USB rechargable (and compatible with the first year too). Passive glasses would also have reduced the resolution although that might be a worthwhile tradeoff. I'm not sure what alternative you suggest they should have done differently to avoid "requiring re-purchasse" of hardware. PS3 was software updated to support 3D Blu-ray and 3D games. You might have to avoid existing AV receivers to get the 3D signal through which isn't ideal but not sure how avoidable it would be without making the user manually set up the 3D each time they wanted it and losing half the resolution by putting both frames in a single frame.
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    Think: polarizing screen overlay, sensor in corner watching subtle pixel indication of which eye to show. No need to repurchase TV, just buy stick-on overlay. Cheap passive glasses.

ctdonath 13y ago

It is almost a software change provided the TV is capable of a high framerate. Alas, Sony et al made it a hardware issue, requiring re-purchase of recently-purchased HD hardware and requiring the most expensive & annoying forms where possible (battery-powered high-price easily-lost/broken glasses). This when a relatively cheap polarizing overlay with passive glasses (heck, contacts even) would have made it a no-brainer upgrade.

josephlord 13y ago
Polarsising screens would have had greater cost increase on the TV. Your complaint seems to be that they didn't go all in an put the cost in the TV. The Active glasses can fit over normal glasses. The first year the glasses had button batteries, after that they were USB rechargable (and compatible with the first year too). Passive glasses would also have reduced the resolution although that might be a worthwhile tradeoff. I'm not sure what alternative you suggest they should have done differently to avoid "requiring re-purchasse" of hardware. PS3 was software updated to support 3D Blu-ray and 3D games. You might have to avoid existing AV receivers to get the 3D signal through which isn't ideal but not sure how avoidable it would be without making the user manually set up the 3D each time they wanted it and losing half the resolution by putting both frames in a single frame.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  Think: polarizing screen overlay, sensor in corner watching subtle pixel indication of which eye to show. No need to repurchase TV, just buy stick-on overlay. Cheap passive glasses.