Sony: Glasses-free 3D PlayStation 3 not for a while

To the disappointment of many, Sony has dismissed the possibility of a glasses-free, three-dimensional PlayStation 3 experience being available in the near future. The technology, similar to that of the Nintendo 3DS still has a long way to go.

Speaking in an interview with VideoGaming247 at the recent GamesCom expo, Mick Hocking, Senior Director for Sony Computer Entertainment Europe and Director of World Wide Studio's 3D Stereoscopic Team, stated that the technology should not be expected to appear on large televisions for some time.

"The only way at the moment of achieving high-definition, high quality 3D on a TV is via some form of glasses," he said. "We need to filter the image to each eye."

"Our solution is the active glass solution on the BRAVIA. This is because we can deliver full-resolution frames, there's no drop in resolution and we don't get flicker in our glass solution either, so this, we think, is the best way of achieving the highest possible quality 3D experience on the TV."

Hocking continued to say that a glasses-free solution is currently available for small screens, but issues are still prevalent when brought over to larger displays.

"There are methods that are called autostereoscopic where you don't require glasses, but these are limited in various ways. They only work for a typically single viewer, and they can only show a small amount of depth, so for very small screens they're OK."

"And you scale them up to a big screen; they don't work very well at all. There are no technologies at the moment to do glasses-free technology on TVs, and I don't think that's going to change for a while, actually, because any way you try and do it glasses-free on TV is incredibly complex," hocking said.

"The cost would be very high, even if someone could develop it."

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Sony looking into Online Pass option for its games

Next Story

Ivy Worldwide SMB Survey Winners announced

39 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Nintendo does not make televisions. It seems from other posts in the thread that Microsoft may begin to, I'm not sure. Sony is actually in the best position to offer a 3D gaming experience since they provide both the televisions and the gaming console.

Of course, this article really doesn't have anything to do with PS3. A large format glasses-free tv would also work for, you know... TV (and movies). A new PS3 would not even be required.

thatguyandrew1992 said,
Maybe instead of glasses, people could use contacts. Kind of takes care of most of the issue with glasses right?
considering iirc the glasses you need for 3d take batteries, unless you can fit a watch abttery in a contact lenses somehow... lol

treemonster said,
considering iirc the glasses you need for 3d take batteries, unless you can fit a watch abttery in a contact lenses somehow... lol

but not the ones in movie theatres... currently home systems are using a different method than theatres. no reason why the theatres version wouldnt work in contacts

What is a 3DTV though? I have read reports stating that 120hz TV's and Monitors can achieve 3d in games, and that it should be released shortly. Then I read that the 3DTV's that are out right now, are 240hz. Are they just providing overkill with the new tv's? Or for real 3d, does is really take 240hz? I always believed that as long as each eye was getting 60hz, it would be just the same, just not as buttery smooth as an extra 60hz will get ya through each eye though with 240hz. Am I wrong? Any one willing to clarify this wonder?

shakey said,
What is a 3DTV though? I have read reports stating that 120hz TV's and Monitors can achieve 3d in games, and that it should be released shortly. Then I read that the 3DTV's that are out right now, are 240hz. Are they just providing overkill with the new tv's? Or for real 3d, does is really take 240hz? I always believed that as long as each eye was getting 60hz, it would be just the same, just not as buttery smooth as an extra 60hz will get ya through each eye though with 240hz. Am I wrong? Any one willing to clarify this wonder?

240hz 3DTV means 120hz per eye, and presently around 100-120hz is the norm for a regular TV (at least from looking at my super market's stock).

Non-glasses 3DTV is completely different, as it works with a series of sensors along with a different type of screen which can push out different images at different angles. A bit too complex to explain in one of these reply boxes.

JustinN said,

240hz 3DTV means 120hz per eye, and presently around 100-120hz is the norm for a regular TV (at least from looking at my super market's stock).

normal was around 60 to 75hz I thought, and that 120 to 240hz were relatively new for the TV scene.
Non-glasses 3DTV is completely different, as it works with a series of sensors along with a different type of screen which can push out different images at different angles. A bit too complex to explain in one of these reply boxes.

TV History Wikipedia -
"When the cathode ray tube was developed in the 1920s, technology limitations of the time made it difficult to run monitors at anything other than a multiple of the AC line frequency used to power the set.[citation needed] Thus producers had little choice but to run sets at 60 Hz in America, and 50 Hz in Europe. These rates formed the basis for the NTSC (60 Hz) and PAL & SECAM (50 Hz) sets used today. This accident of chance gave European sets higher resolution, in exchange for lower frame-rates. Compare NTSC (704x480 NTSC at 30i and PAL/SECAM 704x576 at 25i). However, the lower refresh rate of PAL/SECAM introduces more flicker, so sets that use digital technology to double the refresh rate to 100 Hz are now very popular.

Another difference between 50 Hz and 60 Hz standards is the way motion pictures (film sources as opposed to video camera sources) are transferred or presented. 35 mm film is typically shot at 24 frame/s. For PAL 50 Hz this allows film sources to be easily transferred by accelerating the film by 4%. The resulting picture is therefore smooth, however, there is a small shift in the pitch of the audio. NTSC sets display both 24 frame/s and 25 frame/s material without any speed shifting by using a technique called 3:2 pulldown, but at the expense of introducing unsmooth playback in the form of telecine judder.

Unlike computer monitors, and some DVDs, analog television systems use interlace, which decreases the apparent flicker by painting first the odd lines and then the even lines (these are known as fields). This doubles the refresh rate, compared to a progressive scan image at the same frame rate. This works perfectly for video cameras, where each field results from a separate exposure - the effective frame rate doubles, there are now 50 rather than 25 exposures per second. The dynamics of a CRT are ideally suited to this approach, fast scenes will benefit from the 50 Hz refresh, the earlier field will have largely decayed away when the new field is written, and static images will benefit from improved resolution as both fields will be integrated by the eye. Modern CRT-based televisions may be made flicker-free in the form of 100 Hz technology.

Many high-end LCD televisions now have a 120 or 240 Hz (current and former NTSC countries) or 100 or 200 Hz (PAL/SECAM countries) refresh rate. The rate of 120 was chosen as the least common multiple of 24 frame/s (cinema) and 30 frame/s (NTSC TV), and allows for less distortion when movies are viewed due to the elimination of telecine (3:2 pulldown). For PAL at 25 frame/s, 100 or 200 Hz is used as a fractional compromise of the least common multiple of 600 (24 x 25). Until a 600 Hz refresh rate becomes available, PAL video will speed up cinema by a small percentage (currently 1 to 4 percent). These higher refresh rates are most effective from a 24p-source video output (e.g. Blu-ray Disc), and/or scenes of fast motion."

So it seems that 100-120-240hz are new to tv, and before we were watching them at an even less 50-60hz. So is it not possible to produce a 3d image, 60hz each, and still have the human be comfortable? lol

shakey said,

TV History Wikipedia -
"When the cathode ray tube was developed in the 1920s, technology limitations of the time made it difficult to run monitors at anything other than a multiple of the AC line frequency used to power the set.[citation needed] Thus producers had little choice but to run sets at 60 Hz in America, and 50 Hz in Europe. These rates formed the basis for the NTSC (60 Hz) and PAL & SECAM (50 Hz) sets used today. This accident of chance gave European sets higher resolution, in exchange for lower frame-rates. Compare NTSC (704x480 NTSC at 30i and PAL/SECAM 704x576 at 25i). However, the lower refresh rate of PAL/SECAM introduces more flicker, so sets that use digital technology to double the refresh rate to 100 Hz are now very popular.

Another difference between 50 Hz and 60 Hz standards is the way motion pictures (film sources as opposed to video camera sources) are transferred or presented. 35 mm film is typically shot at 24 frame/s. For PAL 50 Hz this allows film sources to be easily transferred by accelerating the film by 4%. The resulting picture is therefore smooth, however, there is a small shift in the pitch of the audio. NTSC sets display both 24 frame/s and 25 frame/s material without any speed shifting by using a technique called 3:2 pulldown, but at the expense of introducing unsmooth playback in the form of telecine judder.

Unlike computer monitors, and some DVDs, analog television systems use interlace, which decreases the apparent flicker by painting first the odd lines and then the even lines (these are known as fields). This doubles the refresh rate, compared to a progressive scan image at the same frame rate. This works perfectly for video cameras, where each field results from a separate exposure - the effective frame rate doubles, there are now 50 rather than 25 exposures per second. The dynamics of a CRT are ideally suited to this approach, fast scenes will benefit from the 50 Hz refresh, the earlier field will have largely decayed away when the new field is written, and static images will benefit from improved resolution as both fields will be integrated by the eye. Modern CRT-based televisions may be made flicker-free in the form of 100 Hz technology.

Many high-end LCD televisions now have a 120 or 240 Hz (current and former NTSC countries) or 100 or 200 Hz (PAL/SECAM countries) refresh rate. The rate of 120 was chosen as the least common multiple of 24 frame/s (cinema) and 30 frame/s (NTSC TV), and allows for less distortion when movies are viewed due to the elimination of telecine (3:2 pulldown). For PAL at 25 frame/s, 100 or 200 Hz is used as a fractional compromise of the least common multiple of 600 (24 x 25). Until a 600 Hz refresh rate becomes available, PAL video will speed up cinema by a small percentage (currently 1 to 4 percent). These higher refresh rates are most effective from a 24p-source video output (e.g. Blu-ray Disc), and/or scenes of fast motion."

So it seems that 100-120-240hz are new to tv, and before we were watching them at an even less 50-60hz. So is it not possible to produce a 3d image, 60hz each, and still have the human be comfortable? lol

I still have an old 50hz TV and it plays many things still perfectly fine, however if you want to face paced action movies, you can actually notice a difference, so you could do lower end but the problem is that people are now used to higher end, and gaining one (3D) and loosing another (frequency), they won't be satisfied, so people try to push out both. Just human nature really.

JustinN said,

I still have an old 50hz TV and it plays many things still perfectly fine, however if you want to face paced action movies, you can actually notice a difference, so you could do lower end but the problem is that people are now used to higher end, and gaining one (3D) and loosing another (frequency), they won't be satisfied, so people try to push out both. Just human nature really.

That's what I was thinking as well. It would be possible, it is just that we would have to go back to watching movies at the lower hz were used to... but with 3d, it might not be that bad, as you are already pretty confused most of the time on where to exactly look .

djdanster said,
Didn't Microsoft produce a 3DTV that didn't require glasses? I thought they showed it at CES09?

See my post above.

Microsoft created a large screen TV which allowed for 3D without glasses a few months ago. It unfortunately currently only works for 2 viewers at any one point in time, however they stated they are working to improve that. It's an experiment, rather than a product in progress, and the way it works is quite simple in theory, but complex to implement.

JustinN said,
Microsoft created a large screen TV which allowed for 3D without glasses a few months ago. It unfortunately currently only works for 2 viewers at any one point in time, however they stated they are working to improve that. It's an experiment, rather than a product in progress, and the way it works is quite simple in theory, but complex to implement.

And here's Toshiba's : http://www.engadget.com/2010/0...es-free-3dtv-for-q4-launch/

If your waiting for the "3D fad" to end, your an idiot. While I admit that wearing a set of oversized and heavy glasses to watch TV or play video games is less than desirable, people would be stupid to assume that games and movies will stay in a 2D format forever. entertainment moving to 3D is no different than the progression from black-and-white to color, or the progression from 2D sprite based games to 3D rendered games.
I'm sick of people ****ing and moaning like this is some sort of "Pet Rock", get over yourselves. I own a 3D TV, and while I hate the glasses, I really enjoy the 3D experience.

RaidenX said,
If your waiting for the "3D fad" to end, your an idiot. While I admit that wearing a set of oversized and heavy glasses to watch TV or play video games is less than desirable, people would be stupid to assume that games and movies will stay in a 2D format forever. entertainment moving to 3D is no different than the progression from black-and-white to color, or the progression from 2D sprite based games to 3D rendered games.
I'm sick of people ****ing and moaning like this is some sort of "Pet Rock", get over yourselves. I own a 3D TV, and while I hate the glasses, I really enjoy the 3D experience.

I have never experienced 3D. I do have to say that it is ridiculous for company's to invest much into something that is more of a gimmick than something that needs to happen for competition. Now Microsoft has a display in development that will work with out the glasses. I just figure with all of the eye strain from playing games then and the 3D that your not supposed to watch for more than a few hours at a time. It's almost as bad as smoking.
That was sarcasm to your comparing 3D to the progression from black-and-white to color, or the progression from 2D sprite based games to 3D rendered games. These examples are huge leaps, (well maybe from black and white to color) , and made a lot of sense to do. Spur competition and over all widely excepted by consumers as great achievements.
I have not much interest in the whole 3D I will try it out when its cheep or a friend gets it.
It is always a pull to get you to give up more money. That is what businesses do. Make things for people to buy.

RaidenX said,
If your waiting for the "3D fad" to end, your an idiot. While I admit that wearing a set of oversized and heavy glasses to watch TV or play video games is less than desirable, people would be stupid to assume that games and movies will stay in a 2D format forever. entertainment moving to 3D is no different than the progression from black-and-white to color, or the progression from 2D sprite based games to 3D rendered games.
I'm sick of people ****ing and moaning like this is some sort of "Pet Rock", get over yourselves. I own a 3D TV, and while I hate the glasses, I really enjoy the 3D experience.

The difference from B&W to Color or from SD to HD is different. Those had changes that had little to no drawbacks and provided a huge change and was accessible to everyone, basically everywhere. The current state of 3D is very lacklaster, actually degrades the experience (by dimming colors and blurring the screen), and hinders the overall experience (big warning on those glasses that state you shouldn't use them for an extended period of time). Finally, HD and color could go everywhere that had a TV. I don't expect 3D TVs in airports anytime soon due to limitation of those stupid stupid stupid glasses.

Until I see anything that presents itself in 3D as more than a gimmick (ie, people throwing stuff at you on screen) or with more than limited changes (most games just make the HUD float) the tech can curl up and die for all I care. This coming from someone who jumped on blu-ray and HD-DVD as soon as they launched too.

Chrono951 said,

The difference from B&W to Color or from SD to HD is different. Those had changes that had little to no drawbacks and provided a huge change and was accessible to everyone, basically everywhere. The current state of 3D is very lacklaster, actually degrades the experience (by dimming colors and blurring the screen), and hinders the overall experience (big warning on those glasses that state you shouldn't use them for an extended period of time). Finally, HD and color could go everywhere that had a TV. I don't expect 3D TVs in airports anytime soon due to limitation of those stupid stupid stupid glasses.

Until I see anything that presents itself in 3D as more than a gimmick (ie, people throwing stuff at you on screen) or with more than limited changes (most games just make the HUD float) the tech can curl up and die for all I care. This coming from someone who jumped on blu-ray and HD-DVD as soon as they launched too.

I agree with the lackluster statement, however this is the beginning of 3D (at least in standard color, vs blue/red) and it's getting better and better. I can't wait for holographic implementations that truly display in interactive 3D. Until then bring on these advancements in the technology.

Also, microsoft isn't the only company working on glasses-less technology, in-fact phillips released a while back a solution, while it was no way suitable for home use due to costs they did create it. We just need to be patient and watch the tech evolve.

But, as you mentioned dear god I hope they work on maximizing the effect and not the shoddy theatrical effects there doing now (thinks Friday the 13th 3D, why do they still try the same lame techniques)... perhaps once a newer/younger generation begins releasing 3D movies we will have a better 3D movie.

RaidenX said,
If your waiting for the "3D fad" to end, your an idiot.

I'll just repeat what I said above: 3D has come in and out of style for movies for the better part of 60 years now. It is a fad that crops up every couple of decades, lasts a few years, then drops out of sight for a decade or so. Anyone claiming that "it will be the next step in the evolution of entertainment" obviously isn't old enough to have been around for the last time or two that the 3D fad showed its ugly head.

Anyone who thinks that this time is any different than the last 3 or 4 times that 3D has been popular is either completely ignorant of history, or trying to justify their investment in a technology that will fade out AGAIN within 3 or 4 years.

roadwarrior said,

I'll just repeat what I said above: 3D has come in and out of style for movies for the better part of 60 years now. It is a fad that crops up every couple of decades, lasts a few years, then drops out of sight for a decade or so. Anyone claiming that "it will be the next step in the evolution of entertainment" obviously isn't old enough to have been around for the last time or two that the 3D fad showed its ugly head.

Anyone who thinks that this time is any different than the last 3 or 4 times that 3D has been popular is either completely ignorant of history, or trying to justify their investment in a technology that will fade out AGAIN within 3 or 4 years.

And now I will destroy your argument. 3D has indeed come in and out. However, it's now good enough that it's genuinely viable. You could say exactly the same about any technology that comes in and out. Minidisc was a terrible product in terms of the way it was used etc, but the concept of smaller digital music has come back out in the form of MP3's on memory cards or hard disc based players. Better implimented but essentially the same concept. Other situations can be applied here with other products too. You don't like 3D, fine... but because you say it, doesn't make it a fad. You're being short sighted. You can't compare the 3D of today's movies to the 3D of 50 years ago.

RaidenX said,
If your waiting for the "3D fad" to end, your an idiot.
You start a post insulting and showing that you can't even spell correctly "you're".

I don't understand why are people replying you in a constructive manner.

ps: 3D is already experiencing a sharp fall in movie revenue. Whether you like it or not, 3D is a fad, a marketing gimmick, at least in its current form.

undu said,
I don't understand why are people replying you in a constructive manner.

A grammatical error aside, not that your grammar is much better, my point still remains... 3D is not a fad. Yes heavy glasses will vanish in the near future. I implied in my first post that the glasses suck. But in some fashion or another, 3D will be where the industry evolves to. To suggest that it's a fad is silly. But that statement isn't directed at @Intrinsica but at all people who comment on their belief that 3D will go away.

played on pc - 3d is a novelty
it looks cool for a while, but tries your eyes out quickly.

also, it is distracting. i returned my nvidia glasses after a week.

3d is not nice yet, all it looks like is just layers, and not too many of them, imo. not a very smooth experience.

Meh, I'm still waiting for this 3D fad to end. Especially when it comes to gaming; from what I've read on the subject, using the 3D glasses with games causes some issues for the player since they get more easily distracted by the foreground elements rather than the image as a whole. But hey, since I've never played 3D, nor watched something in 3D since the 90's I'd be interested to hear about people's experiences.

Meh, I'm still waiting for this real life fad to end. Especially when it comes to sports; from what I've read on the subject, using real life with sports causes some issues for the player since they get more easily distracted by physical sensations rather than the game as a whole. But hey, since I've never played a sport, nor watched something being played since the 90's I'd be interested to hear about people's experiences.

Normally I laugh at the simple one-word-replacement replies, but I'm not sure yours makes much sense in relation to the topic at hand...

I was trying to raise the point that the real world is "in 3D" and therefore 3D media, especially games where you get to interact with the environment, more closely reflect the real world than their traditional 2D counterparts. You raised the point that the extra information you get regarding depth distracts from other things that might be happening, but in real life you get hit by infinity more information, such as the wind, textures, smells, pain etc. combined with the depth and I'm sure these affect someones attention to a much greater scale. I understand that not everything that happens in the virtual world is possible in the physical world, but 3D is a step towards the realism most games try to achieve. I think in 10 years it will be comparable to the difference between the old point-and-click games with all material pre-rendered and the current games with 3D environments (note: the 3D I'm talking about in this sense is the environment and not the display of said environment), and once you've become accustomed to having it going backwards is almost painful.

EDIT: Rather than comparing point-and-click, I think a more fitting simile would be going from black-and-white to colour television, as the colours may distract you from things you would otherwise have been paying attention to in a black-and-white equivalent. However, I'm sure you'd agree that colour lets the experience feel far more realistic and many of the things we take for granted now would be completely ruined without it.

Edited by shhac, Aug 24 2010, 7:33am : better comparison

Intrinsica said,
Meh, I'm still waiting for this 3D fad to end. Especially when it comes to gaming; from what I've read on the subject, using the 3D glasses with games causes some issues for the player since they get more easily distracted by the foreground elements rather than the image as a whole. But hey, since I've never played 3D, nor watched something in 3D since the 90's I'd be interested to hear about people's experiences.
+1. I'm already bored of it. It hurts my eyes and gives me a headache. Not to mention it's just distracting. I see this as a fad only lasting a couple of years, just like before. More and more people are feeling the same way too, so the media companies are going to be forced to abandon it sooner or later. Movie theaters that don't show 3D movies are becoming a trend in my city.

To honestly think that 3D will fade away is a mistake. While the current implementation may not meet everyones standards the fact remains it will be the next step in the evolution of entertainment. I have no current issues with the glasses, however I would quickly welcome a glasses-less solution without hesitation.

I certainly can't wait to try a 3D game out, I hear you guys complain about the distractions, but I'm sorry, you just need to evolve as a gamer.... It's no different than our parents trying to play a current generation game; some can do it, others can't... I for one know my wife has issues understanding the depth in-game with Little Big Planet so I can imagine how 3D would screw her up...

Either way, it's here to stay in one form or another we just need to be patient and see how it and we evolve with it.

SaltLife said,
To honestly think that 3D will fade away is a mistake. While the current implementation may not meet everyones standards the fact remains it will be the next step in the evolution of entertainment.

3D has come in and out of style for movies for the better part of 60 years now. It is a fad that crops up every couple of decades, lasts a few years, then drops out of sight for a decade or so. Anyone claiming that "it will be the next step in the evolution of entertainment" obviously isn't old enough to have been around for the last time or two that the 3D fad showed its ugly head.

shhac said,
Meh, I'm still waiting for this real life fad to end. Especially when it comes to sports; from what I've read on the subject, using real life with sports causes some issues for the player since they get more easily distracted by physical sensations rather than the game as a whole. But hey, since I've never played a sport, nor watched something being played since the 90's I'd be interested to hear about people's experiences.

Ji@nBing said,
+1. I'm already bored of it. It hurts my eyes and gives me a headache. Not to mention it's just distracting. I see this as a fad only lasting a couple of years, just like before. More and more people are feeling the same way too, so the media companies are going to be forced to abandon it sooner or later. Movie theaters that don't show 3D movies are becoming a trend in my city.

More and more people are NOT feeling like this. It's a minority internet group including yourself. The VAST majority of people love 3D, or they'd not still be making crazy amounts of money on 3D Films. Also, the vast majority of people do not have vision or headache issues with 3D. You're in a very tiny fraction group of people that do have that issue.

So no. It's not a fad. You will be proven severely wrong. When color came out, some people thought it was a fad.

roadwarrior said,
Anyone claiming that "it will be the next step in the evolution of entertainment" obviously isn't old enough to have been around for the last time or two that the 3D fad showed its ugly head.
The difference this time around is that the technology has progressed far enough for you to start not needing glasses to watch it.