Sony responds to 3D glasses complaints

Glasses-free stereoscopic 3D has "inherent limitations", Sony has said.

Responding to complaints about having to wear glasses to view games and movies in stereoscopic 3D, the PlayStation 3 manufacturer explained why it's the best solution – and will be for a good while.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
CoryHG2554d ago

I've seen 3D and i've seen the 3DS and I don't think the 3DS is 3D. It doesn't jump out at you, it seems to be layered backwards.

metsgaming2554d ago

i like 3d that is mainly depth. I hate the jump out at you 3d it looks bad and is rarely done decently. As for the 3ds it has very little depth from what i have played with it. It seems to have like 2 or 3 layers of depth kind of like how disney created the old cartoons.

deadpoole2554d ago (Edited 2554d ago )

This is how it is ... you wanna drive 3D ... make it polarized 3D tele (Like Vizio has got) and stop makin ppl buy proprietary 3D glasses.

Those cheap 3D glasses which u use in cinema as well can be used on Passive 3D televisions ... and you dont have to wear freakin 2ton proprietary active shutter goggles.

Follow the passive polarized 3D technology for televisions and ppl will buy these 3D in masses.

Sony is makin the same mistake which they did with PSP ... by removing the second analog stick ... and now they are introducing it in psvita.

Innovate but dont retaliate the norm or proven success (simply dont reinvent the wheel).

hazelamy2554d ago

from what i've read to make 3dtvs that use the polarized glasses like the cinema screens use it's a lot more expensive than the ones that use the lcd shutter glasses.
that's why most 3dtvs use than tech.
hopefully they can reduce the price of the polarisation tech so it can be made cost effective for home tvs.

because the glasses are lighter, though the newest lcd shutter glasses aren't that heavy these days, and they're a hell of a lot cheaper, they're like 80p at my local cinema, as there's no active components in them, just the passive poralised filters.

NukaCola2554d ago

Glass 3D is such a waste. Depth but no immersion. I love that stuff comes out of the screen. I flint a lot playing RIFT 3D, and racing has never been crazier.

The issue is that the flicker glasses take batteries and are heavy. Plus you can notice them flickering slightly.

There are new 3D tvs that debut at CES 2011. The use Real D tech like the rides and the theaters. They use extremely light 3D glasses with no flicker and no batteries. I am getting that tv and Oakley is making really cheap and awesome glasses that fit perfectly and are designed to keep the 3D fully on the eye without any nauseating effects. They are perfectly balanced. The tech is advancing and 3D is becoming the norm in newer TVs.

I love it.

gamingdroid2554d ago (Edited 2554d ago )

"Innovate but dont retaliate the norm or proven success (simply dont reinvent the wheel)."

Well said!

----------------------------- ------------------

"Attempts to put glasses-free 3DTV to market within the next 10 years will be difficult."

Then we are at least 10 years from adoption. In fact, forcing this 3D technology in now might actually damage the industry in the long run as people get turned off by 3D when good technology comes around.

Furthermore, I think consumers in general are not willing to put up with glasses at home. They might at the cinema for 2-hours where the 3D effect are on the big screen.

You can't force something down consumers if there are options and I don't think content will change it either. It's just not ready, drawbacks to large and the cost to high.

----------------------------- ------------------

3DS makes me nauseous within 30 seconds!

ArmrdChaos2554d ago (Edited 2554d ago )

Even if you overlook the nuisance factor. People do not want to pay extra money or deal with the glasses. Even if they got the price down to 20 dollars a pair people will still have issues. How would you throw a superbowl party and invite 10+ guests to watch in 3D? You going to tell someone "I'm sorry I only have 4 pairs glasses". Oh...we can ask everyone to bring their own glasses...if they have a set...or if they remember. If some people don't have glasses you'll end up having to watch without 3D since it currently is an all or nothing proposition. Bottom line is that glasses create a extra layer of management just to watch TV, which is what will keep it from mass acceptance.

sak5002554d ago (Edited 2554d ago )


I agree. I bought a Passive 3D tv (vinverth). It's not a known brand but it's full 1080p 42" supports SBS, Top/bottom, line something and has pretty decent quality. IT cost about 680$ and came with free HD media player during the launch. The media player chucks out 1080p crisp vidoes at 24p and also 3D.

Whoever said the polorised tech is expensive is crazy. It's cheaper now than active in cost to build as well as TCO. It came with 4 glasses plus i have 6 pairs from RealD movies in cinemas which also work on it. These glasses are lighter shaded and lighter to wear and no need to worry about battery dying during the film.

Since this is just 2nd gen i hardly paid much to gain entry into 3D and yet i can always upgrade w/o feeling bitter when 3rd Gen comes in a year or so.

archemides5182554d ago (Edited 2554d ago )

polarized tech is not expensive, but when displaying 3D is it HALF resolution compared to shutter tvs. it would be crazy expensive to make passive tvs that display full 3D resolution because they would have to be 4K screens (comparable to imax resolutions)

however if you playing 720p games in 3D (on ps3) you probably wouldn't see as much of a quality drop compared to movies because it's running at a lower res anyway

metsgaming2554d ago

yea i have also noticed the glasses flickering sometime its extremely annoying while sometimes i cant tell

DaTruth2554d ago (Edited 2554d ago )

The complaints are mostly fanboys, just looking for something to complain about! When I watch movies in 3D, the only thing that bothers me, is wondering how I'm gonna go back to 2D... it's that much better! It's like watching B&W televisions after watching colour... 3D and colour is how we see in real life!

People wear glasses their whole lives, a two hour movie won't kill anyone! Playing videogames for 5 hours and around hour 3, it starts to bother you... simply take them off and play in 2D!

I see the flickering in the movie theaters too... for like the first 5 minutes of the movie, then it becomes unnoticeable!

Edit: I have triple vision in certain lighting conditions that takes the HD out of my real-life vision! If my eyes didn't change on an hourly basis, I would gladly get glasses to fix it, but their are no glasses for my condition! Luckily, it doesn't affect my ability to see HD on a TV or 3D for that matter, but it does make reading computer monitors a real problem!

gamingdroid2554d ago

***People wear glasses their whole lives, a two hour movie won't kill anyone! Playing videogames for 5 hours and around hour 3, it starts to bother you... simply take them off and play in 2D!***

Regular glasses which I use, have gazillion different versions made for both fit and style. An uncomfortable chunky pair of 3D glasses isn't exactly the same, especially for those not used to glasses. Those wearing glasses, don't want a second pair on top.

That said, I don't think people want that experience relative to the uncomfortableness and price. If they did, I'm sure sales would have been a lot better by now.

***The complaints are mostly fanboys, just looking for something to complain about!***

I think plenty of surveys has been done on both gaming and non-gaming sites to conclude glasses is one of the most often complained issue.

I'm not entirely sure what kind of fanboys would complain about 3D? Fanboys of 2D?

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 2554d ago
jacksheen00002554d ago


Well I think the 3DS 3d effects sort of works but it seem to have this flickering blurry screen when ever I play a game.Who know, Maybe Nintendo might decide to improve the 3d effects on the next 3ds.

Oh and watching the uncharted demo on here gave me a huge headaches.

beastgamer2554d ago

i think passive 3d is the best
Currently have an LG 42in 3DTV
with my ps3, and i haven't been disappointed.

Blaze9292554d ago

my college actually has this 3D demo TV in the Advanced Tech building that requires no glasses at all for 3D and it works amazingly - at any angle and range.

They play this pinochio demo where his nose reaches out - simply sick.

I have to try and get the name of the TV next time I go but I believe it was a Toshiba set. So the tech is definitely here - way above what the 3Ds offers. Guessing it's just too expensive

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2554d ago
bumnut2554d ago (Edited 2554d ago )

Im happy wearing glasses at the moment, 3D makes my PC games look great.

@ random disagree:

Are you saying im not happy wearing glasses or my games don't look good?

GoldPS32554d ago

Who ever disagreed are just mad they don't have the money for a gaming PC. It wasn't me tho lol.

Spenok2553d ago

I need to buy me glasses for my Comp.

Hell, im thinking of buying that Sony 3DTV for $500 when it comes out. The only problem i have with it is its only a 24'' tv :/

Raven_Nomad2554d ago

3-D is and always has been a fad. Sony poured money into it in order to use it as a "stopgap" this generation. Considering it's going to be a longer console cycle they needed something to "wow" the public.

The bad part is, most people don't want to wear glasses, I know I don't want to wear glasses to watch television or play games and I think the majority of the public think this way.

Not to say 3-D couldn't get some sort of market Share, but it'll be never reach the majority. When you consider that just now were sitting at 59% of people with HDTV's in their homes, you can see what an uphill battle something as gimmicky as 3-D has in front of it.

xtreampro_REVENGE!2554d ago

I agree, I also think it's having a bad effect on the graphical quality of some of the new exclusive titles.

bumnut2554d ago

Thats because 360 and PS3 don't have the power to render the game twice without dropping the detail or resolution.

3D cuts your framerate by nearly 50%, if a game is running at 30 fps in 2D it would end up around 17 in 3D which would be unplayable. So they have to reduce the quality to compensate.

Im sure people will disagree but I speak the truth.

kikizoo2554d ago

"bad effect on graphics" ?

hmm no, since only the game in 3D is affected.

by the way, don't talk about 360, that don't, and can't offer 3D on game like kz3, uncharted3 (even without 3D in fact)

archemides5182554d ago

bumnut u are only talking about certain 3d techniques. yes when they go ahead and render the frame twice they virtually either have to half the resolution or the framerate, but there are techniques that are used now in a lot of games where the performance impact is only around 1% (such as socom 4, crysis 2, captain america, green lantern and such). they only truly render the image once but then alter the image based on the 3d-depth buffer for the second eye, and it works pretty well. not as good as rendering twice but it stays just as sharp and keeps the framerate. ultimately next gen we'll see 1080p native 2d games that run in native full 720p in 3d without any other compromise

DaTruth2554d ago (Edited 2554d ago )

I'm a huge 3D fan, but this I can agree with! If it was just halving the res for the 3D, then it wouldn't be such a problem, but KZ3 dropped the incredible dynamic lighting engine from KZ2, to facilitate 3D!(this is the only reason I can think of why they dropped that amazing lighting engine)

If it hurts the graphics of the 2D game, they need to find a better way, or not bother!

Edit: If there's a problem, it's asking people to buy a new big screen television after some of us have just purchased 1, 2 and even 3 HDTV's in the past 5 years!

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2554d ago
hazelamy2554d ago

what exactly is wrong with wearing glasses anyway?

Spenok2553d ago

Couldnt tell you. Honestly it seems like its just something to bitch about if you ask me. Sony is the big pusher of 3D in the gameing industry, and since everyone loves to hate sony and what they do it seems like there skapegoat.
But if you look at the TV industry EVERY manufacturer has 3D TV's. And i dont see people bitching about those. I used to work in an electronics store and people were picking up 3D displays quite often.

And Ravens arguement that only 59% of all people have HDTV's makes it actually easier for 3D to be adopted since those other 41% of people would more then likely jump in full stream and get a 3D HDTV instead of just an HD alone.

Anon19742554d ago

People said color tv was a fad too and complained about price and little content. Then HDTV was a fad that was too expensive with not enough content. Now 3D is a fad that's overpriced and not enough content. Notice the pattern.

Studios cashing in on 3D would beg to differ about 3D's "fad" status. There's plenty of evidence out there that points to the appetite for 3D. And if you think 3D is overrated - walk around with an eyepatch on for a day.

@ bumnut couldn't be more out of touch. "Consoles can't do 3d without dropping blah blah blah." The article has a comparison of Uncharted 3 running in 2D and 3D right at the bottom of the article. Sure doesn't seem to be sacrificing quality, and certainly looks playable to me. Similar comparisons have been made with GT5 and Killzone3. Where are these issues you speak of?
"Im sure people will disagree but I speak the truth."
Where's your proof? I see plenty of proof to the contrary, but I have yet to see evidence of your claims. That seems to make you...what's the word for it? Oh yeah. Wrong.

news4geeks2554d ago

I think it's a fad and I'm not a fan. 3D already tried twice in it's history to take off and failed.

We are however seeing the biggest push for it yet, with many massive companies starting to make 3D TVs and trying to turn this many times failed fad into a cemented place in peoples homes. It may well become the standard in a few years, but it's something I don't care about.

I may be interested when glass-less 3D, with superior 3D tech, comes around.

Christopher2554d ago (Edited 2554d ago )

Watched Dancing In The Rain again the other night, was funny seeing how people thought talking movies were a fad.

CoryHG2554d ago

Bluray was a fad too! But then again so was Betamax, Laserdisc, Minidisc, and HD-DVD. Half of those were sony technologies btw.

Phantasm2554d ago (Edited 2554d ago )


My repost:

Just visit movie message boards, the hate for 3D is overwhelming.

In order for 3D to become the new successful format, you have to have everyone on board (Consumers / Producers and Results). None of this is happening.

For a while 3D films were doing 60% of the box office business, but this year they've dipped to 40%. Transformers 3 has been the only positive exception with 60% of it's revenue coming from 3D, however... it did $38 mil. less compared to Transformers 2 in 5 day comparisons.

All other films underperformed in 3D, or were 2D only releases. Even Kung Fu Panda 2 and Cars 2 underperformed.

In addition to this, hollywood is just not commiting 100% to 3D. These are just a few examples of big 2D only releases:

The Hangover 2
The X-Men: First Class
Fast Five

Nolan has even past on 3D for his next Batman film, because he didn't want to cheapen it.

3D TV sales -

3D movies - http://www.businessinsider....

3D movies -

If glasses are one of the biggest issues, then we'll have to wait for these. (but I do understand that nothing will be perfect) -

The next fad -

Phantasm2554d ago (Edited 2554d ago )

*New link*

If glasses are one of the biggest issues, then we'll have to wait for these. (but I do understand that nothing will be perfect) -

archemides5182554d ago

the same extreme hate was seen on the major disney boards when they found out that they had to rebuy all their disney collectors dvds on blu-ray. this is a very similar circumstance.

ColecoVision2554d ago

Re-buying disney films on reg. blu-ray doesn't require the use of glasses. Consumers have realized that it was time to take advantage of their HD display with an HD source.

3D is different.

Not every film is in 3D, nor should be, and won't ever be in 3D. Films like Avatar and Transformers 3 in Imax 3D can be a good time.

The films that are being post-converted to 3D are only helping bring 3D down.

I'm on movie message boards, and I hear things like this... "F**k 3D", "glasses suck", "if they think they can get me to go see their film because it's in 3D, they can go to hell."

I personally have seen My Bloody Valentine and Avatar in 3D... nothing else in 3D since then.

3D is just something that the majority will never accept as their standard of viewing.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2554d ago
xtreampro_REVENGE!2554d ago

Samsung and LG have the best 3D glasses, they're lightweight and thin. LG's however cause no eye strain or headaches which is why I would by an LG 3D TV over a Sony or Samsung one any day, but Samsung would always be my second choice.

Sony needs to update their 3D glasses like everyone else.

ZombieAssassin2554d ago (Edited 2554d ago )

Doesn't Sony use LG screens for their TV's? Also can you only use Sony brand glasses on Sony 3D tv's?

To tell the truth though I've never seen a movie in 3D or a game, the one time I went to Best Buy to check them out they had the display tv off because apparently something was wrong with it. From what my friends tell me though 3D movies at the cinema are tits.

kramun2554d ago

'From what my friends tell me though 3D movies at the cinema are tits. '

Can you explain to me what that means? Is that good or bad? I use 'tit' in my speaking to either talk about breasts or as a derogatory remark about someone, like "Look at him,he's a right tit", but not in the way you've just used it.

Is that another way of saying 'the dogs bollocks'?

This isn't a slight at you btw, just wondering what you meant.

xtreampro_REVENGE!2554d ago

I highly doubt they do, but I've heard Samsung makes Sony's parts.

Lol I'm getting a bunch of disagrees from idiotic PS3 fanboys who probably know absolutely nothing about the difference between LG, Samsung and Sony's TV's.

ZombieAssassin2554d ago


Tits are a good thing right (usually anways) so when someone says thats tits it means its good...its just something me and my mates have said for years. Youre not the first to ask me that though.

Phantasm2554d ago (Edited 2554d ago )

@ ZombieAssassin

It was Samsung that helped Sony launch their Bravia line of TV's way back.

Sony does use other manufacturers screens. - http://www.bestgrowthstock....

jacksheen00002554d ago (Edited 2554d ago )

Well I think the 3DS 3d effects sort of works but it seem to have this flickering blurry screen when ever I play a game.Who know, Maybe Sony might decide to improve the 3d effects on the next 3ds.

Oh and watching the uncharted demo on here gave me a huge headaches.

Show all comments (58)
The story is too old to be commented.