Originally Posted by JonStatt
Ghosting will appear equally with strong depth or strong popout. You are right that TVs will show more ghosting with increased 3D effect. However I honestly don't think they are intentionally dumbing down. Newer TVs are already getting closer to the point where it becomes a non-issue.
Movie directors have intentionally opted NOT to use much popout as it is seen as a gimmick and detracts from the intention of the film. Instead the use of 3D is to add depth almost at a sub-conscious level where you have to close one eye and re-open it before you realise just how good a difference it makes. More gimmicky films, primarily aimed at kids, such as Spy Kids 4 might use more popout effects. Additionally IMAX films use strong popout and depth to increase immersion. These films are normally limited in run-time as it can cause headaches for some people with continued watching. So the recommendations above to test with titles such as "Under the sea" are absolutely spot-on for a greater perceived 3D effect.
Good posts, but I think this is revealing of an issue here.
Pop out, or negative parallax, is being used in this thread as a sort of metric of quality. At least one person considered returning the HMZ-T1 due to perceived lack of negative parallax. This is the entirely wrong way to judge!
I have been advocating the quality of the 3D experience based on positive parallax, or depth, as a metric. The 3D is truly expansive in the positive parallax range; citing games such as Wipeout and Resistance for their immersive 3D. As has been stated quite a number of times, source material -- including games -- makes a far greater use of positive parallax, and the HMZ-T1 shines in this regard. Also, studies show that negative parallax is fatigueing; almost every article I read on 3D parallax noted the issue of fatigue, particularly -- as you point out -- in long-run movies.
And you are also right that modern filmmakers primarily use 3D for depth to create immersion. In the past attempts at 3D (the '50s and the '80s), negative parallax -- or "pop" as it's called in this thread -- was the standard technique. And what happened? Both times, 3D failed (and they used similar polarized 3D technology as today, even in the '50s!). People didn't want to pay for pop!
So with all these things going against negative parallax ("pop") -- including the complete failure of 3D as a medium in the '50s and '80s! -- why is pop the only metric we're using for judging 3D?
It shouldn't be! The immersive aspects of GT5 or Resistance or Avatar or Monsters vs. Aliens all rely on positive parallax -- or depth.
And the HMZ-T1 reproduces this depth better than any 3D I've seen. One poster called it "discrete 3D." and for me that's the perfect description of the HMZ-T1 3D experience!