Everyone does realize that current 3D content will be compatible with future full-sized autostereoscopic displays right?

Meaning, your 3D BD movies, your 3D PS3 games, etc. will still work on any autostereoscopic HDTV with an HDMI 1.4 interface.

They just don't make large format autostereoscopic displays currently because the limited viewing angle of the 3D effect in today's autostereoscopic displays (such as the Sharp display being used in the Nintendo 3DS), as well as price. There's no point in having a big screen glassless 3D display if the effect can only be seen by the viewer sitting directly perpendicular to and centered in front of the HDTV.

40" autostereoscopic displays will also cost quite a bit more than the glasses based models currently available, which can bought today for well under $2,000. Just this week I saw an ad for a 46" Samsung 3D plasma HDTV for under $1,300.

Wtf did i just read?!?

Agreed (awesome Toradora reference as well)

iPads are hardly taking over living room TV. Also if there's anything you shouldn't buy to watch movies it's an iPad. With archaic 4:3 you'll get way more picture real estate and a much more pleasing resolution on a 16:9 netbook which costs less than half as much and is barely any larger, if you buy a modern model. They also almost all run Windows 7 these days, get the same battery life, and obviously have many more features as they are full PCs with PC ports. 

Heck, a 3DS running 3D movies in 16:9 on its 3.6" screen will be a better experience for watching movies than an iPad. 

Read better the post he commented, I guess he was referring to a funny misspelling...  

It's definitely puzzling for anyone to claim that a portable device "will take over the living room." Unless people start restructuring their living rooms to function more like a classroom or an office work space, the living room will remain more like a small theater, which works best with one large display (or an array of displays).

But as for a 3.6" screen being better for viewing movies than a 9.7" display, regardless of 16:9 vs. 4:3 aspect ratio, I can't agree with that. The bigger display still has more viewing area at a higher resolution. Of course what should be noted is that the 3DS screen displays 3D images; the iPad doesn't.

So portable 3D movie viewing will only be possible (for the near future) on a 3DS, which only leaves the question of how Nintendo's 3D media business arrangement will work out with all the major studios who actually produce 3D movies because without that, 3D movie viewing will be like a car without gasoline.

It is very obvious you two, and everyone else it seems, have no idea wtf your talking about and Sony is actually completely right in this situation. Basically because you do not have any idea on the technology at hand here and probably shouldnt be opening your mouths unless you do. BUT since you did, let me educate you some on this very problem.

The technology needed for TVs are anything that has screens larger then the 3DS's to present picture in 3D without glasses is very immature. Sony has two sets that DO NOT require glasses. There are two issues with it. One, the technology is VERY VERY expensive; two, 3D without glasses has a extremely limited viewing angle. The reason the 3DS doesnt need glasses is because the screens are small and the users will be staring pretty much straight at the screen at any given point. If for some reason a gamer tries to play the 3DS when the system is set down and at any angle be prepared to see a giant blur at best.

Both Sony and Panasonic have TVs without 3D glasses. They are expensive and impracticle in every aspect due to limitations in technology.  If Nintendo is going to release a full 3D console, they will have to require glasses or home-owners to have $20,000 TVs. Which sounds better?

Nintendo isnt even pushing technology with the 3DS. They are taking technology that exists and shrinking it down to the only point that it will work till the tech matures. What Sony is saying is that Nintendo is cheering on technology that has been in use for over a year now, that is currently extremely limited, and making fun of the only way current 3D tech can work effectively. They are asking to work together so that maybe Sony and Nintendo can push "glassesless" 3DTVs into mainstream affordable levels by developing upon existing tech.

Wow. What?

You just said exactly the same thing as the the people you're "disagreeing" with. They said Nintendo can push glasses-less 3D into the mainstream. You just gave a bunch of reasons why Sony and Panasonic can't.

And no, Sony's not trying to promote glasses-less 3D. The article clearly states that they (or at least the person interviewed) believes glasses are necessary for a good 3D experience.

I've actually never said that Sony is not in the right situation. If Nintendo goes 3D with their next home console, they will require glasses for their games, that's actually why Nintendo shouldn't bash it. So you're totally right with your whole post. And I also never said that Nintendo is pushing the technology itsself, they just push, as you said, existing technology to the mainstream. The only fail in my comment was the "new" before technology, so...

But somehow Sony is pushing it to the mainstream as well, of course, but it just needs much more time, because 3D TVs are too expensive right now.

1. Sony has glassesless 3D TVs.

2. Currently the tech is to immature for actual TV sizes.And way to expensive.

3. Glasses currently is necessary for a good 3D experience.

4. The article clearly reveals that the Sony rep wants to work with Nintendo to move the industry towards glassesless 3D.

5. A small screen like the 3DS will not push it to mainstream as the entire electronics and entertainment industry needs to move to glassesless tech. Its the entire game and movie industry that needs to put the R&D behind the tech for large viewing experiences. Currently only Sony and Panasonic is doing the true R&D work apparently.

6. Nintendo is proving nothing at all with the 3DS screen except what is already known. It can only work properly with small screens.

7. I was pointing out that both posters were off on their comments. And that we dont have the tech at the moment to make what needs to happen, happen on large scale TVs.

Hardly anyone will buy a Sony glasses-free 3D TV. That's obviously not pushing it to the mainstream.

A lot of people will buy the glasses-free 3D technology on the 3DS. That is making it mainstream. The size of the screen doesn't matter. The technology itself is, and can only be, pushed to the mainstream by Nintendo, at least in the near future.

 And no, the article clearly does not state that Sony wants to push glasses-free 3D. I really can't understand where you get that idea from.

It may not prove anything new, but it is a much better application of the existing technology. That is why people everywhere will buy it, and that is why it will be considered mainstream.