Not 3D in gaming, please !
There's already quite enough graphical pixie dust, than you very much. We've had 3D for a decade already, visually speaking, and without goggles, and we're getting enhanced explosions and more particles now thanks to the physics engines that are being more and more abused.
But more realistic worlds we are not getting. We still run into doors we cannot blow away, tanks that get damaged against trees and shrubbery that absolutely never gets flattened.
Sometimes even the fences are impassable barriers.
So quit fooling around with yet another useless fad and fix those points first before shoving so-called 3D gaming with those bloody, headache-inducing goggles on us poor gamers !
I shudder to think of a goggled version of Battlefield 2 would be. Yech.

OK, interesting question. I agree the user base is likely to expand despite lack of 3D content.

One reason would be that response times and refresh rates required for 3D enhance gaming on any platform.

Another gaming related factor is that PC users with the right hardware and drivers should be able to make any 3D rendered game fully 3D. Consoles might take a generation. So designers of 3D hardware should not just consider the TV market but the computer monitor market, which is a little more demanding ie they should also try to minimise display latency, for twitch games.

Just to clarify, this is a partial mix of statements from two points I made in response to questions at a seminar. My position is as follows: 3D TV consumption will not be huge in the next five years because there is likely to be only a limited number of channels available and only for specific types of content. The installed base of 3D capable TVs, however, is likely to grow at a faster rate than homes subscribing to 3D content as there is little or no impact on manufacturing costs. The reference to 'picture book' is my personal experience of viewing 3D TV where this layered effect is noticeable. Finally, as others have pointed out, 3D does not require double the bandwidth of HD, the signal for each eye is effectively half an HD picture, two halves making a whole.

... can't take advantage of this anyway. I get more and more fed up every time I see one of these psuedo 3D posts. It isn't 3D!!!!

Real 3D will be R2D2 style projected 3D and when that comes around you can call it it 3D and even people like me ~(with a lazy eye) can watch it.

Until then... please stop calling it 3D - it just makes me angry, and you wouldn;t want to see me when I'm angry. Hmmmmf!

holography depends on diffraction patterns which would require micrometric scales of display resolution, 1080p doesnt quite cut it

also what does a holographic movie camera look like? probably requires a reference laser, necessarily low power infrared so it doesnt blind cook or irratiate everyone it tries to immortalise

Maybe its not impossible though.

When they make a 3D holographic display then I will be excited , other wise , ho hum .
Holography is most true to life , walk 360* around the object and all sides are displayed , truly fantastic , back in the 70's it was demonstrated and then nothing , shame .

Please stop playing with the internet before you break it.

Yeap, sometimes this kind of thing happens when the webserver does not reply and yet the comment has been posted

... And yet you are using double the bandwidth with your double posts!

Does Guy Bisson know how to speak English? That first sentence makes absolutely no sense!

I am not fussed in the slightest about 3d TV - I want Sky to stop ripping me off for HD tv first. (Although I would LOVE to see Christine Blakely in 3d!)

3D HD doesn't require double the bandwidth!!! Much of the information on the frame for one eye is present in the other.
Using interframe compression betweeen them would save a lot of the required bandwidth so it would be bigger but not as much as you imply.

3D HD doesn't require double the bandwidth!!! Much of the information on the frame for one eye is present in the other.
Using interframe compression betweeen them would save a lot of the required bandwidth so it would be bigger but not as much as you imply.

i completely disagree, i would love to see christine bleakley in 3d at anytime of the day!