Ubisoft sees 3D TVs 'in everyone's living rooms' within three years

@jumpshot

Ubisoft needs to lay off the reefer.

@jumpshot Yeah, no kidding. The penetration rate for HDTV's in the U.S. is still under 50%. Seeing as 3D TV's are even more expensive, as is the sparse amount of 3D programming, I don't see this happening in even the next 10 years, if the fad even lasts that long.

@jumpshot why do you guys keep interviewing drunk guys??

@FredFredrickson
Oh, it will at least last that long. The industry has spoken--they're shoving it down our throat no matter what we do. Once all TVs are made exclusively as 3DTVs, then we'll all have it..3 years after that.

Before then..it aint happening.

@Acosta02

15 years ago?

@Acosta02
1992

@LegendaryFluffy Then you are the one who would go straight to 3d, a number of people just bought big expensive HD TVs and theater systems so how likely are they to do a second overhaul of their wallet and living room?

@rhododragon

That line of reasoning doesn't really make sense. So once he's ready to move on from SD he's going straight to 3D? Why? They're still going to have a high price tag, and in comparison you would be able to buy a substantially cheaper & larger HDTV with no 3D. I've seen this argument a few times and it just doesn't hold water.

@MarkezJM

The reasoning makes sense to me. Unlike a couple years ago, when 720P TVs were most common, just like almost every HDTV sold today is Full HD, and most are 120 Hz. Similarly every HDTV sold in a couple of year is likely going to be 3D ready, so if he does hold of on switching till then, he will have no choice but to switch from SD directly to 3D-HD. He doesn't have watch his TV in that format, but the hardware will be capable. It'll be a case of "the flesh is strong, is your spirit willing?"

@MarkezJM

It does make some sense. If you're buying an HDTV right now, getting a 3D capable TV is certainly a consideration. They me be a little more expensive (a lot of variables here though), but it would be more expensive to buy an HDTV now and then a year later decide you want 3D after all.

*may be

@Vidikron

Yeah, I suppose I neglected a bit how tightly integrated 3D will be in most HD sets down the road. That said I'm sure you'll still be able to go with 3D-less HD set for marginally cheaper I guess.

@MarkezJM

I just think it would be a prudent consideration for someone in the market for a new TV. No one wants to buy an expensive new electronic gadget and quickly come to regret it. Buying a new TV now that didn't have 3D could result in exactly that situation. You could buy a 3DTV and regret spending the extra for it, but at least in that case you still have a perfectly functional HDTV. If you buy a non-3D capable HDTV and then regret not getting 3D there's not much you can do but get a new TV.

Again, I'm not saying you should buy one (I don't have one myself and am not currently in the market), but if I were buying a TV soon 3D would certainly be one of the options I would weigh carefully.

@Nintari

Based on an average person's visual acuity (1 arc minute = 20/20), and the recommended distance of sitting while watching TV (2X diagonal size), 1080P is the limit of the resolution at which people can separate one pixel from next. While all this push to 1080P has been marketing hype driven, there is a logic behind that resolution. Now that 1080P is hard coded into Blu-Ray disc, I don't see any manufacturer pushing resolution of TVs beyond that. Computer monitors, where you sit much closer than 2X diagonal, higher resolutions are warranted, and will continue up to the limit of visual acuity. For TVs 1080P is going to be it, unless we are talking about a home theater front projection system. The Sony DLP projectors being used in digital movie theaters are 4K (4096x216), so there is an upper limit beyond 1080P for the master source material.

@rajendra82
4K = 4096x2160

@MarkezJM

I think this hits the nail directly on the head. I don't see 3D TV leaving the "fad" and becoming "mainstream" until the glasses are gone. Nobody wants to sit down and look for the 3D glasses every time you turn on the TV. It's bad enough simply finding the remote. Or what if you're one of those people that also *gasp* does something else while the TV is on. 3D glasses tend to make that not-so-much fun.

But even if glasses-less 3D was available (it's still essentially in development) and cheap, I still don't see even the remotest possibility of "in everyones living rooms" in 3 years ... They are WAAAY (I want to put about 50 "A" in that word) overestimating the rate of saturation of new technology.

@rajendra82 stop reading the advertisements...

@LegendaryFluffy

I started reading these comments and about halfway through I stopped and scrolled down.

Glad I did.

@rajendra82 it's one thing the stores are full of new tvs versus homes full of new tvs.

Everyone will have a 3dtv once the glasses are gone.

Woah. My next upgrade's probably gonna be a 32" HDTV in about two years. Hopefully it'll be dirt cheap. I won't upgrade to 3D until they figure out a way to do it without the glasses.

But I could see people with more money in their pockets going straight to the 3D after an SD. It makes sense to skip the extra step if you're planning on getting the 3D someday anyways.

@Nintari

"If you think we're going to stop at 1080P, then you're crazy. It's just a matter of time. As you stated, PC monitors go well beyond that and they do so for a reason."

They do it because you typically sit much closer. Now, they may well try and market higher resolution TVs simply so they have something new to sell, but the simple truth is that the average person won't being seeing much more detail, if any. Here's a good chart:

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

If you look at that chart you'll see they have 1440p listed. So, as an example, if you had a 1440p resolution display that was 50 inches in size (fairly large), you would have to sit 5 feet or closer to see the full resolution. So even if they they try to market something like 4K for the home, it will really only be useful for home projectors and people that sit way to close to their TVs. Everyone else will just be buying a bullet point.

Again, I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to sell TVs with higher resolutions eventually, but they won't make a noticeable difference beyond the placebo effect for most people.

*too close

@LegendaryFluffy I still have a 23" CRT TV. It's not even a flat glass. 3D in 3 years? Hell no. Not with this economy.

I still play my NES on a 13 inch black and white tv. Screw 3D and HD.

@AutobotIronhide

Yeah, screw color, too.

Screen television. I still listen to the radio. Oh and screw FM while we're at it; AM is where it's at bitches.

Screw*

Bah it's already ruined. Stupid predictive text.

@AutobotIronhide

Wow that brings back memories. I used to play Bubble Bobble, 2 players on a black and white TV. "I'm that one!" "No, that's me!" "Nu uh, jump!"

@Acosta02 Screw computers as well!

@BrianH

my first TV was a 10 inch (yes 10 inch) black and white portable TV, I also beat Silent Hill 2 with it, made it much scarier i think

How awesome would it be to play SMB on a radio?

Radio Announcer: "Here he comes, Mario's on a fast start and POW! RIGHT THERE A GOOMBA! Oh, he sees a question block he GRABS it for the easy mushroom! now there's another koopa coming quick here OH he dies.

I don't know. Not good at this kind of thing.

@vidguy I Think it may catch on with the younger generations who are still at home with their parents but once set loose on the world the 3d TV would be the pinnacle of their own home theater once they can afford to purchase one.

@rhododragon

It didn't catch on the last few times they pushed it, so what's so great about it this time. It still requires glasses and gives people headaches. It still has only three levels of depth, the 3rd being a flat background. The only thing that has really improved is that HD gives them a more detailed picture and a higher pixel count to split for each eye. Until they find out how to trick the eye into seeing something real happening on the other side of a pane of glass, and also make it affordable, it will be a failed technology every time.

@vidguy I think "if they're lucky" is right. I can't see 3D penetrating more than 5% of the market by 2015. It's obscenely cost-prohibitive and provides minimal value to the viewing experience, while creating massive headaches in a large portion of the population.

Honestly, I'd be surprised if any of the big manufacturers are still making 3D TVs in 2015.

@LokeSTL

Gives people headache?
That was the case with the old red-green anaglyph 3D glasses and those analog polarized glasses requiring two separate film projectors which never ran perfectly in sync. The 3D TVs sold today refresh each eye at 60 FPS with a black frame in between. They remain perfectly in sync, because the left and right picture is alternated. This is truly headache free technology for a vast majority of the population.

Only three levels of depth?
What the hell are you talking about? The 3D technology has no levels of depth. The left and right images differ based on how far they are meat to appear from you. There is a continuous level of depth from right in front of your face to infinitely far away.

Pixels split between eyes?
That's the tech of last round HDTVs (3DDLPs mostly). That tech used a checkerboard pattern with half the pixels always used for left eye and other half for the right eye. That tech is now obsolete. The newer 3D HDTVs refresh at 240 Hz. They show a full 1080P frame for the left eye, then a black frame, then a full 1080P frame for the right eye, then another black frame, and so on. The shutter glasses sync up with the TV and show a picture in the left shutter when the left frame is on, and one in the right when the right frame is on. There is no division of pixels. Using this method for game hardware is a bit hard of the console and causes them to scale back the detail to keep up the frame rate. But in 3 years we are talking about the next generation of consoles, so that issue will become moot as well.

Nothing on the other side of the pane of glass?
Do us a favor, and take a look at the store display of a 3D TV. You will understand the level of depth a 3D display provides. The objects can appear as far away as the horizon. The distance of the display is not a limiting factor.

@rajendra82

The only problem is the its still requires stereoscopic vision which many people, like myself, cannot view. Until they can figured out true 3d with out glasses and not using your eyes ability to interpret stereoscopic pictures 3D will remain a fad, no matter how impressive it may actually be.