Is 3D about dead? - Page 3 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1100Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 3337 Old 11-14-2013, 02:21 PM
 
Cyrano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Northwest Boonies
Posts: 5,753
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterpack View Post

That's the point. If it developed how ESPN envisaged it would, more and more sporting events would be in 3D and bigger and bigger ones,,

But obviously it wasnt that popular hence the outdated content

2011 seems to be the year when people were giving 3D a real crack but it hasn't been following up by more content in 2012 and yet more in 2012

I know it's not the greatest measure but take for example the Sports Illustrated swimsuit video in 3D for 2011. If that had sold well, you can bet they would have done 2012 and 2013 in 3D as well, but they haven't

I think you are right. Yet I think 3D is something that may sputter and start and stop before it gets rolling. I wasn't really aware of 3D being so available in so many consumer TVs in 2011. It was last year that I began to notice so sets having 3D as an option. (Last Christmas I noticed a little 32" Vizio selling for $279 new and I hesitated and by the January 2013 it was about $450. I had wanted it for a Computer monitor. It is now hard to find.)

I got into 3D 1 month ago with a projector. $750 and the 3D is excellent. Finding good 3D movies at a good price is keeping me from viewing more. But slowly I'll find those I want.

I wonder if perhaps as more of the public have 3D capable set happens we'll see a resurgence of interest by broadcasters. Maybe not. It seems a coin toss with the odds against as it appears right now. But I am hoping someday we'll get the option of it offered again.
Cyrano is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 3337 Old 11-14-2013, 02:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
joed32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Yeah that was nice.
joed32 is offline  
post #63 of 3337 Old 11-15-2013, 09:13 PM
Member
 
Isnoreatmovies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Is color TV about dead?

The first color tvs and broadcasts started in about 1954. The broadcasters didn't go to an all color primetime until '66 and all color programming until '72 or so. Even then, color tv set sales didn't match black and white set sales until '72.... 18 years and color wasn't in a majority of American households... certainly it must've died.
old corps likes this.
Isnoreatmovies is offline  
 
post #64 of 3337 Old 11-15-2013, 09:35 PM
Advanced Member
 
tory40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 747
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Clarity and details are so important to 3D, I don't see how TV broadcasts can supply the bandwidth needed for a quality of 3D that will keep people wanting more. I can't get Netflix 3D in Seattle on Comcast broadband for some reason so i don't know what thats like but i did try downloading my Mass Effect game video using the Youtube App on my Samsung 3DTV and the quality was far less than in my PC's browser, which is far less than the original, which is somewhat less than in-game. It was horrible and a bad example for 3D.

By clarity being important to 3D, i just mean they go hand in hand. High Def content makes things look very real, while 3D lays those very real looking objects in front of you. Its simple concept, but not widely realized from my experience.

Clarity, FOV and 3D all greatly compliment each other IMO.

The Oculus Rift (consumer version) I hope will help show non-gamers what a high FOV can do for immersion.
tory40 is offline  
post #65 of 3337 Old 11-15-2013, 10:45 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 12,404
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1313 Post(s)
Liked: 373
tory40-

Netflix 3D requires only select 3D Tv's or a PS3 right now. Also minimum bandwidth to receive it. Comcast just announced more bandwidth for some areas but it's reassuring they are not standing stil. The quality on some titles are very good here and others have some issues. Overall quality varies as does the optical disks on the market. Generally the titles that are good on disk, look just as good on Netflix. Active screens with shutter glasses will result in higher resolution than passive monitors but passive screens still give good enjoyable quality similar to a good DVD.

My 3D videos and more
Don Landis HT System: Projector Sony VPL VW665ES Players: Samsung UBD K8500 OPPO BD93 Sony BDP S6200 All Regions Player Denon AVR 4311ci, 7.1 JBL Professional series and Klipsch PS3, XBOX360, Dish VIP722K; 3D Edit Suite: Edius7.53, Vegas Pro v13, Power Director15, i7-950, LG 3D TV DM2752
Don Landis is online now  
post #66 of 3337 Old 11-16-2013, 10:01 AM
 
Apostate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 906
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isnoreatmovies View Post

Is color TV about dead?

The first color tvs and broadcasts started in about 1954. The broadcasters didn't go to an all color primetime until '66 and all color programming until '72 or so. Even then, color tv set sales didn't match black and white set sales until '72.... 18 years and color wasn't in a majority of American households... certainly it must've died.

The difference is broadcasters embraced "color" technology and started broadcasting in color in about 1954 as you've said. Not so with 3D.
Apostate is offline  
post #67 of 3337 Old 11-16-2013, 12:19 PM
 
Cyrano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Northwest Boonies
Posts: 5,753
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apostate View Post

The difference is broadcasters embraced "color" technology and started broadcasting in color in about 1954 as you've said. Not so with 3D.

Yes. I think 3D is going to take longer to gain acceptance and really get going. I think we need some technological breakthroughs. 3D is more of a niche type of thing than color was, I think. But I could be wrong. I am not sure everyone "digs" it. I do. smile.gif
Cyrano is offline  
post #68 of 3337 Old 11-16-2013, 03:58 PM
Member
 
Isnoreatmovies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
I wouldn't call 12 years to commit to evening broadcasts and 18 years to commit to all day programming in color "embraced".

Avatar and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs essentially ushered in the new era of 3D movies in 2009, Panasonic offered the FIRST modern 3D television in the spring of 2010. We're talking just 3 years ago.

It took 18 years for sales of color tv sets to match the sales of black and white, 3D has come a long ways fast comparatively. Whether it becomes the dominant medium or not in the future is unknown, but it is quite early to even say it's faltering by any means.
FilmReverie likes this.
Isnoreatmovies is offline  
post #69 of 3337 Old 11-16-2013, 10:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
FilmReverie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Grid
Posts: 660
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isnoreatmovies View Post

I wouldn't call 12 years to commit to evening broadcasts and 18 years to commit to all day programming in color "embraced".

Avatar and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs essentially ushered in the new era of 3D movies in 2009, Panasonic offered the FIRST modern 3D television in the spring of 2010. We're talking just 3 years ago.

It took 18 years for sales of color tv sets to match the sales of black and white, 3D has come a long ways fast comparatively. Whether it becomes the dominant medium or not in the future is unknown, but it is quite early to even say it's faltering by any means.

Agreed and on top of all that it has only been around a year and a half that true quality 3d gear has been available at home (there where some earlier displays that where good but most where rather bad).
FilmReverie is offline  
post #70 of 3337 Old 11-17-2013, 07:03 AM
 
Apostate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 906
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isnoreatmovies View Post

I wouldn't call 12 years to commit to evening broadcasts and 18 years to commit to all day programming in color "embraced".

Avatar and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs essentially ushered in the new era of 3D movies in 2009, Panasonic offered the FIRST modern 3D television in the spring of 2010. We're talking just 3 years ago.

It took 18 years for sales of color tv sets to match the sales of black and white, 3D has come a long ways fast comparatively. Whether it becomes the dominant medium or not in the future is unknown, but it is quite early to even say it's faltering by any means.

Absolutely embraced. The broadcasters of old wanted "color." They clearly saw "color" as the future of TV. The willingness was absolutely there.

You say the time it took to fully implement the color technology is an indication of not embracing the color technology? You are missing the context of the era. You are used to the rapid development and distribution of technology today. Four years is almost a generation in today's technology lifespan. Not so back in the days. Things moved much more slowly than now.

Also don't forget the relative cost. Color TV in olden days cost hell of a lot more than 3D TV today to an average consumer which would impede the penetration rate. In fact, technology is a whole lot cheaper in general. Do you remember how much VCR was when it first came out? And put that price in today's dollar. You will be astounded.

Of course, by today's standard, the time it took the broadcasters to adopt the color technology seem abnormally long but that has no bearing on the broadcasters' want and willingness to have "color." You have to consider that shifting from black and white to color is a wholesale change in equipment; and I am sure the cost was not cheap. You can understand why broadcasters would take their time when you take the cost and required effort to convert to "color" into consideration.

On the contrary, for 3D TV technology, the cost and effort should not be so odious in comparison for the broadcasters. The reason for lack of 3D broadcasting is that the willingness is simply not there for the broadcasters. There is no commitment. Who's broadcasting in 3D now?

Let's look at it from another angle. Once started broadcasting in color, did any broadcasters of old stopped broadcasting in color? Did any of the pundits of old claim that "color" TV is a fad and will die/is dying? I don't know but that is exactly what's happening with 3D TV today.

Don't get me wrong. I really, really hope that you are right since I am simply enamored with 3D. All I can say is it's still way too difficult to get 3D in terms of cost and convenience; and it doesn't look like it's going to get better anytime soon.
Apostate is offline  
post #71 of 3337 Old 11-17-2013, 04:24 PM
Advanced Member
 
d james's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 852
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 16
If they keep implementing 3D into televisions at cheaper and cheaper prices, I suspect it will stick around. if manufactures didn't have hope in it, or make money on it, then they wouldn't include them into tvs. You can buya 42 inch 3d tv for less than 500 bucks now, so that becomes more inspiration for people to go out and buy them. Of course they have to bring the price down, 30+ dollars is too much money for most people on a budget
d james is offline  
post #72 of 3337 Old 11-17-2013, 07:57 PM
Member
 
Isnoreatmovies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apostate View Post

Absolutely embraced. The broadcasters of old wanted "color." They clearly saw "color" as the future of TV. The willingness was absolutely there.

You say the time it took to fully implement the color technology is an indication of not embracing the color technology? You are missing the context of the era. You are used to the rapid development and distribution of technology today. Four years is almost a generation in today's technology lifespan. Not so back in the days. Things moved much more slowly than now.

Also don't forget the relative cost. Color TV in olden days cost hell of a lot more than 3D TV today to an average consumer which would impede the penetration rate. In fact, technology is a whole lot cheaper in general. Do you remember how much VCR was when it first came out? And put that price in today's dollar. You will be astounded.

Of course, by today's standard, the time it took the broadcasters to adopt the color technology seem abnormally long but that has no bearing on the broadcasters' want and willingness to have "color." You have to consider that shifting from black and white to color is a wholesale change in equipment; and I am sure the cost was not cheap. You can understand why broadcasters would take their time when you take the cost and required effort to convert to "color" into consideration.

On the contrary, for 3D TV technology, the cost and effort should not be so odious in comparison for the broadcasters. The reason for lack of 3D broadcasting is that the willingness is simply not there for the broadcasters. There is no commitment. Who's broadcasting in 3D now?

Let's look at it from another angle. Once started broadcasting in color, did any broadcasters of old stopped broadcasting in color? Did any of the pundits of old claim that "color" TV is a fad and will die/is dying? I don't know but that is exactly what's happening with 3D TV today.

Don't get me wrong. I really, really hope that you are right since I am simply enamored with 3D. All I can say is it's still way too difficult to get 3D in terms of cost and convenience; and it doesn't look like it's going to get better anytime soon.

You seem to have higher expectations of today's broadcasters than those of the past. What major network is going to commit to a format that few in the general public can even access? ESPN did, then realized it jumped the gun. I read earlier that 3D capable TVs are getting about 20% of the TV sales since their introduction. I also read that about 6% of all households now have 3D capable TVs. Even if sales jump to 50% of all sold TVs are 3D capable, it will still take a number of years before the majority of all households can watch a 3D broadcast. Give it time.
Isnoreatmovies is offline  
post #73 of 3337 Old 11-18-2013, 11:24 AM
 
Apostate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 906
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isnoreatmovies View Post

You seem to have higher expectations of today's broadcasters than those of the past. What major network is going to commit to a format that few in the general public can even access? ESPN did, then realized it jumped the gun. I read earlier that 3D capable TVs are getting about 20% of the TV sales since their introduction. I also read that about 6% of all households now have 3D capable TVs. Even if sales jump to 50% of all sold TVs are 3D capable, it will still take a number of years before the majority of all households can watch a 3D broadcast. Give it time.

Not at all. I was simply refuting your comparison of advent of color television to 3D. To borrow your method, I can turn around and ask what major network is going to commit to a color format that few in the general public can even access? But networks did.

I am saying that despite cost, effort, and time, the broadcasters of old converted to color because they believed that color was the future of TV and committed to that fact.

3D, on the other hand, despite being easier and cheaper to implement than conversion from b&w to color, will never be adopted on a broad scale (if ever) because the broadcasters and consumers do not believe in it. 3D is not the future of TV. 4K is. 3D is a gimmick that is merely a sideshow to HDTV and will never take the center stage.

Hence, your rather droll comparing of color TV to 3D TV is invalid.

My guess is that 3D TV will be relegated to a niche market for aficianados like how LDs were. Unless something extraordinary like glasses-free 3D TV comes along.
Apostate is offline  
post #74 of 3337 Old 11-19-2013, 03:47 AM
Member
 
Peterpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 181
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Liked: 34
I do think good glassless 3D TVs which are cheap will be the rebirth of 3D

Even though they aren't that expensive, too many people use the hassle/headaches from/can't multitask etc excuse of the glasses

Get rid of them and still have 3D and you have a winner

I don't mind wearing the glasses but you have to sit pretty much straight on to get the best effect, i mean with your head at 90 degrees to the floor. Lying on your sofa with your head at a weird angle isn't as good for 3D
Peterpack is offline  
post #75 of 3337 Old 11-19-2013, 04:20 AM
 
Cyrano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Northwest Boonies
Posts: 5,753
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterpack View Post

I do think good glassless 3D TVs which are cheap will be the rebirth of 3D

Even though they aren't that expensive, too many people use the hassle/headaches from/can't multitask etc excuse of the glasses

Get rid of them and still have 3D and you have a winner

I don't mind wearing the glasses but you have to sit pretty much straight on to get the best effect, i mean with your head at 90 degrees to the floor. Lying on your sofa with your head at a weird angle as good for 3D
Agreed. I do think 3d is pretty good now,and I don't mind sitting up for 3d movies but for it to become as common a moviemaking tool as color or sound it must be glasses-free.

I think form of 3d is inevitable. Each advance in film was in the pursuit of increased reality. We won't accept an 18fps black and white silent film as representing reality. Advances always come.
Cyrano is offline  
post #76 of 3337 Old 11-19-2013, 02:16 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,745
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2476 Post(s)
Liked: 1627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyrano View Post

I think form of 3d is inevitable. Each advance in film was in the pursuit of increased reality. We won't accept an 18fps black and white silent film as representing reality. Advances always come.

Watching movies is rarely about realism. No one paid to see Man of Steel to watch a "realistic" movie about an invincible man from outer space who can fly.

Besides which, I would hardly call 3D photography "realistic."

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #77 of 3337 Old 11-19-2013, 03:45 PM
 
Cyrano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Northwest Boonies
Posts: 5,753
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Watching movies is rarely about realism. No one paid to see Man of Steel to watch a "realistic" movie about an invincible man from outer space who can fly.

Besides which, I would hardly call 3D photography "realistic."

Well, let me try and be more clear. Though you might still disagree. When sound first came on the scene there were many who thought it was not an advance in the Art of making movies more "realistic". (I am not referring at all to "plots" when I say realistic.) Color even had its detractors. And I am more in the camp of those who think 3D is not currently making what we see appear more like real life (realistic).
Some of the 3D films are pretty good. After watching Avatar I found it kind of a mental adjustment to watch something more flat. Yet I don't wish to see everything "converted" into 3D.

For the last month I have been watching 3D on my recently acquired Optoma HD131Xe 1080P PJ on a 100" screen. I rarely paid extra to see 3D versions of any of the movies of the last several years at the Cinema. I did enjoy MIB3 in 3D and I saw Gravity twice at two different venues. I thought Gravity was really well done in all aspects. (Okay - a few physics plot points were sketchy.)

But at home there was a difference. Seeing the entire image as something in which everything is in view all at once, like a large painting, or window has made 3D more comfortable for me.

I do think the craft of motion pictures will continue to evolve and 100 years from now techniques will be employed that will make images seem more Real than what we can do now. And a thousand years hence I can only project from what we've accomplished since 1900 or so that what will be displayed will seem miraculous to people of today. I imagine that some aspect of depth or "perceived solidity of objects" will be employed.


I think it was you who I remember writing reviews in a publication in the late 80's and 90's. I cannot now remember the magazine's name, but it was a publication whose issues we laserdiscphiles looked eagerly forward to. There was always good writing that couldn't be found elsewhere in it.
Cyrano is offline  
post #78 of 3337 Old 11-20-2013, 06:01 AM
Member
 
Isnoreatmovies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Watching movies is rarely about realism. No one paid to see Man of Steel to watch a "realistic" movie about an invincible man from outer space who can fly.

Wait, you mean that wasn't real?
Isnoreatmovies is offline  
post #79 of 3337 Old 11-25-2013, 09:09 AM
Senior Member
 
SFMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 272
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 46
As a indicator of how little regard the media manufactuers currently give to 3D, take note that Sony's new Playstation 4 has been released without the ability to playback blur-ray 3D content. http://www.gamefront.com/sony-no-3d-blu-ray-on-ps4-at-launch/
It is also reported that the XBOX One will not be 3D enabled at launch. Read this article for another take on 3D's future.http://www.techhive.com/article/2062317/microsofts-xbox-one-wont-play-3d-blu-ray-movies.html
For those who don't want to link I submit an excerpt below:

"Who cares?

It's unlikely that many people will notice or even care that Microsoft's console won't let you watch 3D movies, though. While 3D was all the rage in 2010 it's barely a footnote three years later.

Take, for example, the latest sales numbers of Blu-ray discs in the U.S. as reported by Home Media Magazine. Only nine of the top 20-selling Blu-ray disc titles included any significant sales of 3D discs during the week ending November 3, 2013—the most recent numbers available.

And of those nine top titles, 3D disc sales were just a sliver of the overall sales. The top Blu-ray seller that week was Monsters University, but only 5.54 percent of those sales were for Monsters University in 3D. The rest of the list isn't much better.

With 3D disc sales taking up a slim margin of overall Blu-ray sales, Microsoft probably won't suffer much for ignoring 3D movie playback, especially if this is just a short-term setback."


I think this is a message from SONY that their active support for 3D is over. The end of "Sony 3D World" is here. As a side note, at my local theater they did not even show Sony Picture's "Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs 2" in 3D and only one week of partial 3D showings of "Thor 2." It is obvious that our corporate masters do not want to be bothered with the expense of 3D in the North American market. Let's hope the Asian market keeps 3D going a little longer.
SFMike is offline  
post #80 of 3337 Old 11-28-2013, 04:49 AM
Senior Member
 
AVTrauma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vancouver, Wa
Posts: 392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 20
From what I have heard/read... "Serious" Gamers love 3D. Do the PS4 & XBox One support 3D gaming? If they do support 3D gaming but not 3D Blu ray, that would seem short sighted on the manufacturer's part. (Unless Sony is trying to increase sales of their 3D Blu ray players to those who have been able to avoid that expense up to this point.)
AVTrauma is offline  
post #81 of 3337 Old 11-28-2013, 11:11 AM
Member
 
rupterr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bucks County, PA
Posts: 168
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 23
PS4 supports 3D gaming but not 3D movie playback yet. It will with a future firmware update.
rupterr is offline  
post #82 of 3337 Old 11-28-2013, 12:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
FilmReverie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Grid
Posts: 660
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVTrauma View Post

From what I have heard/read... "Serious" Gamers love 3D. Do the PS4 & XBox One support 3D gaming? If they do support 3D gaming but not 3D Blu ray, that would seem short sighted on the manufacturer's part. (Unless Sony is trying to increase sales of their 3D Blu ray players to those who have been able to avoid that expense up to this point.)

It is a gaming console, they have ensured the gaming portion is as finished as it can be at release and will update the other areas later.
FilmReverie is offline  
post #83 of 3337 Old 12-02-2013, 02:11 AM
Advanced Member
 
Dr_jitsu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 62
I look it this way (I have not read all the posts, so I apologize if this view has already been promulgated.) Remember when HD came out? I remember being amazed at the difference between HD and lower D. I purchased my first HD TV, a Mitsubishi CRT HD set. Wow, I still remember the first show I watched, and was 100% certain that eventually there would be content available in HD. A few years later, we saw the explosion of Blue Ray playears.

The first time I watched Avatar, I did so in 3D. I also watched it in Blue Ray. Yes, the 3D obviously had more depth, but was overall just a bit better then Blue Ray.

As it is now, if I want 3D I usually have to pony up and buy the disk. I have been underwhelmed by 3D.

If it improves greatly, and I don't have to wear glasses I might change my mind.
Dr_jitsu is offline  
post #84 of 3337 Old 12-06-2013, 09:03 PM
Advanced Member
 
FilmReverie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Grid
Posts: 660
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_jitsu View Post

I look it this way (I have not read all the posts, so I apologize if this view has already been promulgated.) Remember when HD came out? I remember being amazed at the difference between HD and lower D. I purchased my first HD TV, a Mitsubishi CRT HD set. Wow, I still remember the first show I watched, and was 100% certain that eventually there would be content available in HD. A few years later, we saw the explosion of Blue Ray playears.

The first time I watched Avatar, I did so in 3D. I also watched it in Blue Ray. Yes, the 3D obviously had more depth, but was overall just a bit better then Blue Ray.

As it is now, if I want 3D I usually have to pony up and buy the disk. I have been underwhelmed by 3D.

If it improves greatly, and I don't have to wear glasses I might change my mind.

In what areas exactly is it underwhelming you at the moment? Just how it is often being used or other technical reasons? [Also I have to correct this as it to this day irks me, it is blu-ray not blue ray]. smile.gif
FilmReverie is offline  
post #85 of 3337 Old 12-07-2013, 02:10 AM
Advanced Member
 
Dr_jitsu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmReverie View Post

In what areas exactly is it underwhelming you at the moment? Just how it is often being used or other technical reasons? [Also I have to correct this as it to this day irks me, it is blu-ray not blue ray]. smile.gif



Oh the irony: "In what areas [plural] is it exactly [singular]...at the moment (singular) you ask? I would be much more concerned about the massive subject verb disagreement that plagues your torturing of the English language.

Film R.:" Just how it is often being used or other technical reasons?" I have no idea what that sentence means, Ebonics?

But hey, don't feel bad, you got the -right.
Dr_jitsu is offline  
post #86 of 3337 Old 12-07-2013, 07:03 AM
 
Cyrano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Northwest Boonies
Posts: 5,753
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_jitsu View Post

Oh the irony: "In what areas [plural] is it exactly [singular]...at the moment (singular) you ask? I would be much more concerned about the massive subject verb disagreement that plagues your torturing of the English language.

I do this myself at times. And I would like to know what the correct way to examine the effects of a singular problem in multiple situations is.

Why can't this inquiry of a singular problem that may occur in multiple situations be resolved or examined in a single (presumably present) moment?

thanks.
Cyrano is offline  
post #87 of 3337 Old 12-07-2013, 09:44 AM
 
Apostate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 906
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_jitsu View Post

Oh the irony: "In what areas [plural] is it exactly [singular]...at the moment (singular) you ask? I would be much more concerned about the massive subject verb disagreement that plagues your torturing of the English language.

Film R.:" Just how it is often being used or other technical reasons?" I have no idea what that sentence means, Ebonics?

But hey, don't feel bad, you got the -right.

How about just answering his question? rolleyes.gif As long as the meaning is conveyed, grammar is secondary, just a garnish.
old corps likes this.
Apostate is offline  
post #88 of 3337 Old 12-07-2013, 12:05 PM
Advanced Member
 
Dr_jitsu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apostate View Post

How about just answering his question? rolleyes.gif As long as the meaning is conveyed, grammar is secondary, just a garnish.

Do you really believe that? You want me to 'just answer the question", but based upon what was asked it is not possible to do so. The inconsistency between subject and verb makes it impossible ferret out the question. Grammar is not secondary, it is not a "garnish," it is fundamental to understanding.

Let me illustrate the larger problem. Oh, and BTW, English was my worst subject. You have an idea, you write that idea down. It is now once removed. Someone reads it, it is twice removed. If it was well written, then the reader should have a pretty good idea about your idea. If we are heuristically sloppy, then by the time the reader reads the majority of your meaning is lost. The sentence "Just how it is often being used or other technical reasons?" Illustrates the problem. I simply have no idea what this question means, and how I can "just answer it."

Back to 3D, here are my problems: As stated, I am very disappointed w/ the the lack of available material. The last 3 years have taught me that if I want to watch in 3D I have to buy the disk. The number of movies I would pay $4 to watch are not movies I would pay $25-30.00 to own.
Dr_jitsu is offline  
post #89 of 3337 Old 12-07-2013, 12:14 PM
Advanced Member
 
Dr_jitsu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Next, the actual 3D material is not that impressive (and hence the "underwhelmed comment). Movies have more depth, but no other advantages over 2D. In fact the darkness often more than counters any benefit from being 3D.


I do not like wearing the glasses. I bought into the 3D hype 3 years ago, in the hope that 3D would grow, the opposite of what has actually happened. The money spent (can't remember if it was $300 or $500) was a lesson I should already know (don't be an early adopter).
Dr_jitsu is offline  
post #90 of 3337 Old 12-07-2013, 01:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
TonyDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,476
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 334 Post(s)
Liked: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_jitsu View Post

Next, the actual 3D material is not that impressive (and hence the "underwhelmed comment). Movies have more depth, but no other advantages over 2D. In fact the darkness often more than counters any benefit from being 3D.

If the film looks dark, then you're doing something wrong with your setup. A properly mastered 3D movie playing back on a properly calibrated TV should look nearly as bright as its 2D counterpart.

If you had watched a movie that was designed with 3D in mind (just about any of the Imax features, Pacific Rim, House of Wax, etc.) you'd see that there is A LOT more to 3D than just enhanced depth. Those titles use the 3D to really pull you into the presentation.

Quote:
I do not like wearing the glasses. I bought into the 3D hype 3 years ago, in the hope that 3D would grow, the opposite of what has actually happened. The money spent (can't remember if it was $300 or $500) was a lesson I should already know (don't be an early adopter).

As someone who has had to wear prescription glasses since I was five years old, I never have any sympathy for the "glasses wearing" argument. If you're sitting in front of a TV to watch a movie then I don't see how wearing plastic glasses that weigh next to nothing can be such a chore.

If you are trying to multitask while watching a 3D movie (ie talking to your friends, moving about the room, cooking dinner, etc.) then you really should not be watching the movie at all. Multitasking and 3D do not co-exist well together and I think a lot of the complaints about 3D stem from people who try to do exactly this while the movie is playing. In my experience, most movie fans - you know, people who actually sit down and watch the movie instead of having it basically be background noise while they do other stuff - enjoy it.

Also, what possible kind of 3D rig could you have gotten for $300-$500? Three years ago, just the BluRay players were going for close to that amount.
Barry C likes this.
TonyDP is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply 3D Content

Tags
blu-ray 3d , gearvr

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off