Is 3D about dead? - Page 37 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
 386Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1081 of 1758 Old 05-05-2015, 11:24 AM
Senior Member
 
RichJH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Palo Alto CA
Posts: 200
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
(quoting myself, lol)

Actually, the writer is just talking out of his @$$. The LG site shows "smart 3D" in the title of their 2015 models.

http://www.lg.com/us/uhd-4k-tvs

Take nothing this guy says as serious.

Note on the LG site: there's a bug in the selection filter: you have to click on both UHD and 3D to get the full range.
That is not true. My 2015 Samsung ju7500 is 3D. I was looking for a 3D 4K display and found it in this one. The only bummer is it only comes with 1 pair active glasses.
Rich
RichJH is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1082 of 1758 Old 05-05-2015, 12:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,367
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1548 Post(s)
Liked: 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
(quoting myself, lol)

Actually, the writer is just talking out of his @$$. The LG site shows "smart 3D" in the title of their 2015 models.

http://www.lg.com/us/uhd-4k-tvs

Take nothing this guy says as serious.

Note on the LG site: there's a bug in the selection filter: you have to click on both UHD and 3D to get the full range.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichJH View Post
That is not true. My 2015 Samsung ju7500 is 3D. I was looking for a 3D 4K display and found it in this one. The only bummer is it only comes with 1 pair active glasses.
Rich

What does this have to do with my post? I was talking about LG's.

V/I is futile.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #1083 of 1758 Old 05-05-2015, 04:33 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 298 Post(s)
Liked: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
I did read the entire post, and please just follow the questions. You didn't answer that question, you fluffed over it.

Since you don't want to answer that, then I'll rephrase it: IF it was 3D as a whole that people had trouble with, then why isn't 3D as a whole as dead as Dedicated 3D channels are?

Can you answer that one? Again, just that question please, no extra foot of text, and no "3D Blu-Rays are next".

And if you STILL don't want to answer that question, then take to heart what HockeyoAJB had to say, because he spelled it out as well.

I suspect that sooner or later you're going to figure out that there's something about a dedicated 3D channel that makes it dramatically less interesting to people than 3D movies. I, for example, LOVE 3D movies, but can't ever imagine making use of a dedicated 3D channel.

This article pretty much sums it up. So as I said before, 3D was way over hyped after Avatar and they wanted to make everything 3D. Maybe 3D is better suited to a dedicated viewing experience than TV, but like it or not 3D BD is on the decline too, because 3D films are in a decline. 3D is in a decline. The numbers don't lie. So when we're down to less than 5 3D movies a year are we going to deny that the lack of interest in 3D had nothing to do with broadcast 3D failing? To some degree, it would have to. I can see the content and viewing experience, theater vs. living room debate, but how do explain since 2012 there's been fewer 3D movies released each year and a smaller take of 3D sales compared to the 2D release? There's a measurable lack of interest in 3D as a whole, viewers are turned off by it.

Quote:
Why 3D TV is such a turn-off

September 25 2014 at 06:00pm

By GUY WALTERSLondon - The next big thing in home entertainment, they called it. After going colour, then high-definition, it seemed inevitable that television would move into the third dimension.

And so, since around 2010, set manufacturers such as Sony, Samsung and LG have been insisting that we should all be watching programmes in 3D.

Broadcasters, including the BBC, Sky and sports network ESPN, were in on the act as well. To much fanfare, they created whole new departments at the cost of millions to take advantage of this supposedly must-have technology.

For a while, people seemed convinced. Some 1.5 million 3D TV sets — costing roughly 25 per cent more than a traditional TV — have been sold in the UK over the past four years. It was estimated that around half of those households donned their 3D glasses to watch the opening ceremony of the 2012 London Olympics.

And then, without warning, 3D TV fell very flat indeed.

Like Betamax — the video tape format that never triumphed over its rival VHS — 3D TV now appears destined for the landfill, alongside all those other technologies that were supposed to revolutionise our viewing habits.

Last week, Sky all but admitted that it would no longer be broadcasting Premier League football matches in 3D.

The broadcaster said that it would be “more selective” with its coverage, which many understand to be shorthand for winding it down.

Sky’s lack of commitment follows that of the BBC, which halted all its 3D production last November. The then head of the Corporation’s 3D department was brutally honest in her assessment.

“I have never seen a very big appetite for 3D television in the UK,” said Kim Shillinglaw, who is now controller of BBC2 and BBC4.

That waning appetite has been mirrored across the Atlantic.

At the end of last year, ESPN pulled the plug on its 3D channel, because of — in its own words — “limited viewer adoption of 3D services to the home”. So what happened? Why has 3D TV all but died a death?

The simple answer is this — viewers hate 3D, especially in their living rooms.

Unlike watching normal TV, watching 3D TV is a hassle. Special spectacles have to be worn, and as any glasses wearer will tell you, scrabbling around for your specs before a programme starts is annoying.

And, even if you do find your 3D glasses, they have their own issues.

Many 3D TVs require you to wear “passive” glasses — the lightweight plastic type you’d be given at a 3D cinema.

But the problem with these is that they make the screen appear dim, and also halve its resolution — the amount of detail shown on screen. So, although you may be watching a programme in 3D, you are also watching footage of vastly reduced quality.

To get around this, some manufacturers have produced “active” glasses. These electronic devices employ a “shutter” system — alternately blocking each lens at rapid speed — that produces a 3D effect when used to watch the screen.

However, these are expensive, costing around £50 per pair, and require batteries.

Worse still, despite their expense, your Sony “active” glasses will not work when you watch a 3D film on, say, a friend’s Panasonic TV — and vice versa — meaning your active glasses can only be used with a television made by the same manufacturer. The niggles do not end there.

Many viewers find that watching 3D television gives them eye strain, headaches and even migraines.

The reason for this is because the brain finds a simulated three-dimensional image utterly confusing.

In the real three-dimensional world, when we focus on a specific object, everything else goes out of focus. It is that process which gives what photographers call “depth of field”, by which we perceive distance.

However, with 3D television, every object on the screen remains in focus — for they only appear to exist in three dimensions.

And it is that artificiality that causes problems, as our brains attempt to make sense of it all.

“We are still only focusing on a 2D surface, which is very unnatural for the human brain,” says Paul O’Donovan, an analyst at IT research and technology company Gartner. As a result, many viewers start to feel side-effects.

In a test carried out at Eindhoven University in Holland, researchers asked 39 people to read some text on a 3D screen placed 10ft away. Of these, seven started to feel sickness, eye strain and double vision.

It is not surprising, then, that many eye experts have cautioned against children below the age of eight wearing 3D glasses, amid fears that they can damage developing eye muscles.

But, even if you are lucky and you can watch 3D TV without feeling sick, there is also the issue that might be called the “David Attenborough problem”.

A few years ago, when 3D was being heralded, Sir David suspected that it would never catch on.

Many of us, the veteran broadcaster maintained, use television as “wallpaper” — on in the background while we are doing other things such as knitting, cooking, or browsing the internet on a tablet device. Watching television is rarely an immersive experience, unlike the cinema.

“I don’t think 3D TV can be used as wallpaper,” said Sir David, “particularly because you need the glasses and when you put them on it’s very isolating. You become very unaware of the person next to you.”

Even though some of his own documentaries were made in 3D — such as Flying Monsters, a programme about winged dinosaurs — Sir David’s words were prophetic.

Although we may be happy to wear 3D glasses at a cinema — a place we visit purely to view something on a screen — when we watch TV, we simply don’t want to be so involved.

The other big problem is the lack of 3D programming on offer.

After James Cameron’s fantastically successful 3D movie Avatar came out in 2009, there was an assumption that many more film and TV companies would follow suit.

But making 3D TV and movies is an expensive business. Special cameras have to be used, as well as dedicated editing suites.

Most programme makers see 3D as a gimmick, and would rather spend their budgets on improving the sets, or paying for bigger-name actors. Walter Murch, an American film editor, and the winner of three Oscars for his work on films such as The English Patient and Apocalypse Now, spoke for many movie makers when he dismissed 3D.

The technology, he wrote in 2011, is “dark, small, stroby, headache-inducing, alienating. And expensive. The question is: how long will it take people to realise and get fed up?”

No wonder film studios and broadcasters are unwilling to spend vast amounts of money on a format that nobody really likes.

But if 3D is dead, what then is the future? What new technology will TV manufacturers be trying to flog us over the next few years?

The answer is Ultra HD, or also known as 4K.

Whereas a normal high-definition TV has 1080 lines of vertical resolution — the individual elements that up make the picture on screen — 4K has nearly 4 000.

This results in an incredibly rich and detailed picture. And, better still, watching it doesn’t make you feel sick.

It remains to be seen whether 4K will take off. That will require the televisions to be affordable, and for plenty of programmes to be broadcast in the format.

Once again, it’s a case of chicken and egg. People won’t buy the sets unless the programmes appear, and people won’t commission the programmes if people don’t buy the sets.

But you can be sure of one thing: 3D is a turkey — and a dead one at that. - Daily Mail

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #1084 of 1758 Old 05-05-2015, 04:43 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada - West Island: Vancouver, South Direction: Go East, dts:x Films: Under the Skin, 3D, Birdman, x_machina, The Zero Theorem, Interstellar
Posts: 12,735
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5353 Post(s)
Liked: 2308
Good point about James Cameron ... with Avatar 2, 3, & 4 all in 3D. ...The 'resurrector', the 'ressusciter', the holographic 'lifeform'. ...The 3D savior.
...Tomorrow's world of the future.
NorthSky is offline  
post #1085 of 1758 Old 05-05-2015, 05:13 PM
Senior Member
 
RichJH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Palo Alto CA
Posts: 200
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
What does this have to do with my post? I was talking about LG's.
Got a bit carried away. Thats what I get for speed reading.
Rich
RichJH is offline  
post #1086 of 1758 Old 05-06-2015, 05:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,367
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1548 Post(s)
Liked: 1489
The reason that 3D channels fail as a concept is that it presupposes a demand for 3D irrespective of content.

A dedicated 3D channel is about providing 3D anytime of the day. It feeds the needs of someone with the following modus operandi:

Desire:
"I would like to watch 3D"
Action: "Go to my 3D channel and watch whatever's there".
Instead of what 3D fans are likely to follow:

Desire:
"I want to see that specific movie"
Action: "I will see if it's available in 3D, because it might be a good fit for it."
Two entirely different phenomena. All this obfuscation involving ever longer and longer posts by someone intent on tap-dancing is just a red herring side show. 3D dedicated channels as a concept is ill-conceived for the above reasons. 3D movie watching as a whole has a fan base, even if in the US it's waning. And as others have also said, of course folks who hate 3D are not going to want 3D channels. But that doesn't change the MO's above.
dalto likes this.

V/I is futile.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #1087 of 1758 Old 05-06-2015, 06:11 AM
Senior Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 435
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 300 Post(s)
Liked: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
Maybe 3D is better suited to a dedicated viewing experience than TV, but like it or not 3D BD is on the decline too, because 3D films are in a decline. 3D is in a decline. The numbers don't lie. So when we're down to less than 5 3D movies a year are we going to deny that the lack of interest in 3D had nothing to do with broadcast 3D failing?
I'm afraid you are right. I started to buy less 3D Blu-ray content in early 2012 and just recently visited the international Amazon websites to see if any further IMAX films had been released as 3D Blu-rays. I was a bit disappointed, I would have expected a title like Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon in 3D to have been released by now (especially since the film somewhat satisfies both "camps" if you catch my drift ).

I also noted that notorious adult titles in 3D have been "discontinued". Looks to me like the entire back catalogue of 3D titles has come to a sort of standstill, and that's not a good or positive thing, IMHO.

I now stock up on good 3D program content, as I'm getting anxious that some titles might go out of print. And it will get my youngest son Planes 2 in 3D from Mexico, better than to hear him criticize me later for not having done that...

"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless." Oscar Wilde

Last edited by Frank714; 05-06-2015 at 06:16 AM.
Frank714 is offline  
post #1088 of 1758 Old 05-06-2015, 06:38 AM
Senior Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 379
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 67
I suspect that many people imagined television 3D video coverage would gradually expand from sport, to electronic news gathering video cameras in the field, to pop music video clips, to advertising, and could include sitcoms and drama.

So having a dedicated 3D channel able to showcase some of this development could have appeared a good idea, at the time. Of course as matters transpired, use for sport contracted, and about all we are left with currently being produced in 3D is what ends up being shown in 3D at cinemas, such as anime computer rendered in 3D, real world feature films shot natively in 3D, or real world feature films shot in 2D and painstakingly converted to 3D.

Going to the cinema is a special occasion requiring the patron to sit quietly in the one position for a couple of hours in a dimly lit theatre. Wearing 3D glasses is probably considered a relatively minor additional constraint! 3D seems firmly entrenched in the cinema, for a significant percentage of films, and their subsequently released Blu-rays. Most high end TVs offer 3D functionality, even though the 3D functionality of a UHD set may be restricted to Full HD.

Last edited by MLXXX; 05-06-2015 at 06:45 AM.
MLXXX is offline  
post #1089 of 1758 Old 05-06-2015, 06:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,367
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1548 Post(s)
Liked: 1489
I wonder how many of the anti-3D crowd, formed their initial experience from something On-Demand, or from a TV with poor motion handling. I also suspect active-3D as a culprit, but that's for another topic.

Note, I'm not asking for all the anti-3D pundits to show up screaming how they hate it and the 150 reasons why they're "unbiased" or whatever. I'm just wondering about the overall reactions taken as an aggregate.

I started wondering this when I discovered that an otherwise wonderful movie "Edge of Tomorrow" was very difficult to watch in 3D on demand for me. Even on the slow moving scenes, it was almost as if the edge formation (always under the thumb of oppression of your TVs motion handling) was broken from L to R, making it harder to snap to convergence. Yes, on-demand 3D is SBS or OU, but I've seen many 3D films on demand that were smooth as silk.

Someone chimed in that they had problems with Maleficent on demand, but not the blu-ray, so I may end up buying the 3DBD just to see.
mo949 likes this.

V/I is futile.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #1090 of 1758 Old 05-06-2015, 07:04 AM
Senior Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 435
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 300 Post(s)
Liked: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLXXX View Post
Going to the cinema is a special occasion requiring the patron to sit quietly in the one position for a couple of hours in a dimly lit theatre. Wearing 3D glasses is probably considered a relatively minor additional constraint!
For all I know there might even be a sociological aspect that needs consideration: Everybody in there has no issues whatsoever of putting on 3D glasses, no one looks weird because everybody in there does it, too.

Our parents did it,



we are doing it now, especially when we take our children with us.

None of my guests ever had second thoughts when I handed them 3D glasses to put on in the "dark room" which is my home theater, dedicated to such programs, but doing so in a normal, average living room possibly has a smack of weirdness, most people have not yet gotten really accustomed to.

I'd speculate that this would only change if people were able to enjoy 3D programs on their flat screens and in their living rooms - without the need of being asked first to put on 3D glasses.

"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless." Oscar Wilde
Frank714 is offline  
post #1091 of 1758 Old 05-06-2015, 08:26 AM
Senior Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 379
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
I wonder how many of the anti-3D crowd, formed their initial experience from something On-Demand, or from a TV with poor motion handling. I also suspect active-3D as a culprit, but that's for another topic.
I think that active 3D with its out of phase presentation of left and right at 120Hz or even 100Hz (in Europe and Australia for television) is highly suspect.

I note James Cameron's reported statement from 2011 (see http://www.hdtvexpert.com/james-came...-for-the-home/ ):
After Cameron correctly identified side-by-side and top+bottom as being the only practical systems right now for broadcast, he then went on to say, “…full HD 3D would require a doubling of bandwidth, but it’s not necessary right now…you only need full HD for each eye for cinema-sized displays. You don’t need it for home displays. That’s my opinion right now.”
However, for my eyes I have found half-width side by side 1920x1080 less than satisfying a lot of the time. I find myself straining to find the 3D detail needed to pin down the 3D depth. I also find encoding artefacts from use of a low bit rate much more distracting than with 2D material. (I note that James Cameron is a highly respected director, well versed in 3D matters. He believes that use of 3D is inevitable in the long run. I would respectfully agree.)
MLXXX is offline  
post #1092 of 1758 Old 05-06-2015, 08:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,367
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1548 Post(s)
Liked: 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLXXX View Post
I think that active 3D with its out of phase presentation of left and right at 120Hz or even 100Hz (in Europe and Australia for television) is highly suspect.

I note James Cameron's reported statement from 2011 (see http://www.hdtvexpert.com/james-came...-for-the-home/ ):
After Cameron correctly identified side-by-side and top+bottom as being the only practical systems right now for broadcast, he then went on to say, “…full HD 3D would require a doubling of bandwidth, but it’s not necessary right now…you only need full HD for each eye for cinema-sized displays. You don’t need it for home displays. That’s my opinion right now.”
However, for my eyes I have found half-width side by side 1920x1080 less than satisfying a lot of the time. I find myself straining to find the 3D detail needed to pin down the 3D depth. I also find encoding artefacts from use of a low bit rate much more distracting than with 2D material. (I note that James Cameron is a highly respected director, well versed in 3D matters. He believes that use of 3D is inevitable in the long run. I would respectfully agree.)
I have to say, the terrible quality of the On-Demand version of Edge of Tomorrow really took me by surprise. I very rarely have difficulty watching something.

In the past I have been fairly lucky, because I'm usually "happy enough" with the 3D quality of on-demand, though by far most of what we watch is 3DBD. But this thing was painful.

V/I is futile.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #1093 of 1758 Old 05-06-2015, 01:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 3,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 601 Post(s)
Liked: 349
It was asked earlier about the added cost to manufacture a 3D TV (not much). But how about the cost to manufacture a 3D BR. From a marketing point is it more profitable to offer a stand alone 3D version, package it with BR version, or package it with a BR version and the SD version? If it's not terribly more expensive to offer a 3D version or include a 3D version why are so many movies released in 3D theatrically but not in BR 3D?
andy sullivan is offline  
post #1094 of 1758 Old 05-06-2015, 07:57 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada - West Island: Vancouver, South Direction: Go East, dts:x Films: Under the Skin, 3D, Birdman, x_machina, The Zero Theorem, Interstellar
Posts: 12,735
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5353 Post(s)
Liked: 2308
I think the gamers have a large say in the future evolution of 3D.
NorthSky is offline  
post #1095 of 1758 Old 05-07-2015, 03:15 AM
Senior Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 435
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 300 Post(s)
Liked: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthSky View Post
I think the gamers have a large say in the future evolution of 3D.
Well, to me they rather sound very silent. Is there any game available in 3D for the XBox 360 or the PS3?

"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless." Oscar Wilde
Frank714 is offline  
post #1096 of 1758 Old 05-07-2015, 05:05 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 14,128
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 850 Post(s)
Liked: 1107
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthSky View Post
I think the gamers have a large say in the future evolution of 3D.
If that were true, which I don't agree it is, then 3d is dead. 3d never took off on PS3/360 as evidenced by the lack of 3d game support on the new consoles.

3d has firmly settled into its niche market and has peaked long ago at this point. I don't think it will fully die, but it is far from strong and certainly did not catch on as much as was hoped. I don't know ANY normal folk (non AVSers) who even watch 3d at home!

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is offline  
post #1097 of 1758 Old 05-07-2015, 11:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolhand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,843
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
I wonder how many of the anti-3D crowd, formed their initial experience from something On-Demand, or from a TV with poor motion handling. I also suspect active-3D as a culprit, but that's for another topic.
I blame passive.

I have had plenty of bad 3D experiences too. 6 years ago the Imax in my area paid their projectionists ~15/hr. They had a union and everything. Then a national player came in and bought it out and the HSers making min wage were put in charge. Quality took an enormous hit. And its like that everywhere. So if you don't have a properly calibrated 3D system there is a good chance people are leaving with headaches, etc. And with Hollywood slapping a cheap (and lousy) conversions on a ton of stuff, its no wonder people have lost confidence.

I'll add that people are in AWE of my relatively minuscule 3D home theater
coolhand is offline  
post #1098 of 1758 Old 05-07-2015, 04:31 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada - West Island: Vancouver, South Direction: Go East, dts:x Films: Under the Skin, 3D, Birdman, x_machina, The Zero Theorem, Interstellar
Posts: 12,735
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5353 Post(s)
Liked: 2308
Quote:
Well, to me they rather sound very silent. Is there any game available in 3D for the XBox 360 or the PS3?
Quote:
If that were true, which I don't agree it is, then 3d is dead. 3d never took off on PS3/360 as evidenced by the lack of 3d game support on the new consoles.

3d has firmly settled into its niche market and has peaked long ago at this point. I don't think it will fully die, but it is far from strong and certainly did not catch on as much as was hoped. I don't know ANY normal folk (non AVSers) who even watch 3d at home!
I can check with some Microsoft people. ...See what's happening on this 3D front. ...But today you have those holographic glasses from Microsoft, I believe.
There is a dedicated thread on this subject with a hint of the future direction (we are already in it), and it is quite amazing.
...You become part of your virtual environment and you can move freely in it; it is vertigo exhilarating. ...And I kid you not.

* I thought that the PS3 had some 3D games? ...And kids love it, and with Dolby Atmos.

I'm just sharing my ideas, and what I think 3D is aimed for/to. ...Or should/could. ...Would.
It's not a question of agreeing or not; it's a simple discussion about the future of 3D.
And if I was a gamer I would want it bad, real bad. ...With 3D sound too.

What I like and no,t it don't matter; what does is what the masses like and not. ...And that's where the money is; the investment, the resources, the creativity, the art of 3D rendering by the true 3D artists, the push, the energy, the motivation, the results, the efficiency of the world we live in today. ...It's not about lack of water, or pollution, but about consumption, 'till extinction.
...Not my idea, but reality. ...3D reality. ...It starts @ the very beginning, all along the way, and ends up where it first began with all the attention/motivation or not.

Some people hate 3D with an extremely deep passion, others (like me for example) love 3D, with moderation.

Last edited by NorthSky; 05-07-2015 at 04:41 PM.
NorthSky is offline  
post #1099 of 1758 Old 05-07-2015, 05:13 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 14,128
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 850 Post(s)
Liked: 1107
PS3/360 had a number of 3d games, I am just saying it never really took off and gained much popularity from what I have gathered. I was super excited to game in 3d and it was fun at first, but the novelty wore off pretty quick due to the resolution being crippled and it just wasn't quite as exciting as I expected it to be. If they could prevent the resolution from taking a hit vs 2d, 3d gaming would have been much more attractive, but the consoles are not powerful enough for that when you optimize the 2d aspect.

Bottom line is 3d gaming is more exciting in theory vs practice IMO from what I experienced of it. Some other people feel differently though I am sure and have a more favorable perspective on it. Then again the fact that PS4/Xbox One are not showing any interest in the 3d gaming aspect (last I read which maybe that has changed?) sure seems to speak for itself.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is offline  
post #1100 of 1758 Old 05-07-2015, 09:57 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada - West Island: Vancouver, South Direction: Go East, dts:x Films: Under the Skin, 3D, Birdman, x_machina, The Zero Theorem, Interstellar
Posts: 12,735
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5353 Post(s)
Liked: 2308
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthSky View Post
I can check with some Microsoft people. ...See what's happening on this 3D front. ...But today you have those holographic glasses from Microsoft, I believe. There is a dedicated thread on this subject with a hint of the future direction (we are already in it), and it is quite amazing.
...You become part of your virtual environment and you can move freely in it; it is vertigo exhilarating.
This is the thread I was referring to: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=31111170
NorthSky is offline  
post #1101 of 1758 Old 05-07-2015, 11:03 PM
Senior Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 379
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post
It was asked earlier about the added cost to manufacture a 3D TV (not much). But how about the cost to manufacture a 3D BR. From a marketing point is it more profitable to offer a stand alone 3D version, package it with BR version, or package it with a BR version and the SD version? If it's not terribly more expensive to offer a 3D version or include a 3D version why are so many movies released in 3D theatrically but not in BR 3D?
As no one has responded, I'll do so briefly.

It is the norm for any theatrical 3D release to be followed by a 3D Blu-ray release.

A notable exception is Disney who decided not to release certain titles in 3D in the US but did release them in 3D elsewhere, e.g. in the UK. If a US citizen is very keen on obtaining one of the affected titles in 3D they may be able to obtain it in a region free version by mail order. As to why Disney chose to adopt the practice, some people have suggested it was because of expected low sales in the US. Here is a thread on the Blu-ray forum: Why is Disney not releasing 3D blu rays?
MLXXX is offline  
post #1102 of 1758 Old 05-08-2015, 10:14 AM
Advanced Member
 
NSX1992's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 23
I am a 3D nut and have built up my 3D collection in the event 3D dies. My first 3D experience was Avatar The Game on Xbox 360 and Mitsubishi DLP. It was fantastic. I bought a few more 3D games for Xbox and PS3.


Currently I use an 84" 4K LG passive set which has better quality than the theaters. Blu-ray 3D movies look great. I also have a PC with 2 Titan video cards. So my choice for gaming is 1080p 3D or 4K. Sad to say I prefer the 4K resolution as Grand Theft Auto V looks stunning.


As I have stated before 4K is the answer for 3D. Too bad 4K was not available yet when 3D came out.
NSX1992 is offline  
post #1103 of 1758 Old 05-08-2015, 10:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,367
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1548 Post(s)
Liked: 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSX1992 View Post
I am a 3D nut and have built up my 3D collection in the event 3D dies. My first 3D experience was Avatar The Game on Xbox 360 and Mitsubishi DLP. It was fantastic. I bought a few more 3D games for Xbox and PS3.


Currently I use an 84" 4K LG passive set which has better quality than the theaters. Blu-ray 3D movies look great. I also have a PC with 2 Titan video cards. So my choice for gaming is 1080p 3D or 4K. Sad to say I prefer the 4K resolution as Grand Theft Auto V looks stunning.


As I have stated before 4K is the answer for 3D. Too bad 4K was not available yet when 3D came out.
Yes. Further, it's too bad that passive wasn't first.

V/I is futile.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #1104 of 1758 Old 05-08-2015, 02:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 3,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 601 Post(s)
Liked: 349
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
Yes. Further, it's too bad that passive wasn't first.
I wonder if there is a manufacturing cost difference between Active and Passive panels. I mean Sony has used a 70" Passive panel (R550a) and a 70" Active panel (70w850b, 65w850a, 70x850b, 75x850c). Since Sony buys their panels did they get a better deal on Active or possibly switch panel manufactures to one that only offers Active. It certainly doesn't help promote 3D technology when the buyer has to consider two different delivery systems.
andy sullivan is offline  
post #1105 of 1758 Old 05-08-2015, 03:06 PM
Advanced Member
 
film113's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post
It certainly doesn't help promote 3D technology when the buyer has to consider two different delivery systems.
Not to mention that one of them requires consumers to have yet another item (active glasses) that needs to be plugged in and charged.
film113 is offline  
post #1106 of 1758 Old 05-08-2015, 03:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 3,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 601 Post(s)
Liked: 349
Quote:
Originally Posted by film113 View Post
Not to mention that one of them requires consumers to have yet another item (active glasses) that needs to be plugged in and charged.
Yeah. I've had Passive and I now have Active. They both look fine. I've had a dozen people watch both and nobody cared one way or another regarding PQ. But Passive is so much more comfortable and less of a PITA to use. I believe over the years the verdict is in and certainly Passive is the favorite, especially as we move towards 4K. Like the newly released Sony 75x850c. Why Active? Why why why? Maybe nobody makes a Passive 3D panel.
andy sullivan is offline  
post #1107 of 1758 Old 05-08-2015, 03:29 PM
Senior Member
 
scarabaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 425
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
Further, it's too bad that passive wasn't first.
Actually, XPol-branded TVs that accepted a strange form of field sequential 3D (1080i, with the left view in one field, and the right view in the other) were around way before HDMI 1.4 came out. They were basically 1080p LCD screens with an additional polarizer filter, and a simple weave-deinterlacer for 1080i. They worked with regular RealD cinema glasses, just like today's passive 3D TVs. No special signaling was needed, and 3D content could be simply encoded as 1080i. Of course that 3D content was not compatible with any other TVs. The TV was working as a normal 1080p TV, when you took off the glasses.

I do not know why the first HDMI 1.4 3D TVs used shutter glasses instead. I think there might have been patents with costly licensing, either by RealD or by XPol. And, yes, that was a big mistake, which turned off a lot of people with regards to 3D in general.

Last edited by scarabaeus; 05-08-2015 at 06:37 PM. Reason: edited for brain fog.
scarabaeus is offline  
post #1108 of 1758 Old 05-08-2015, 04:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 3,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 601 Post(s)
Liked: 349
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabaeus View Post
Actually, XPol-branded TVs that accepted a strange form of field sequential 3D (1080i, with the left view in one field, and the right view in the other) were around way before HDMI 1.3 came out. They were basically 1080p LCD screens with an additional polarizer filter, and a simple bob-deinterlacer for 1080i. No special signaling was needed, and 3D content could be simply encoded as 1080i. Of course that 3D content was not compatible with any other TVs.

I do not know why the first HDMI 1.3 3D TVs used shutter glasses instead. I think there might have been patents with costly licensing, either by RealD or by XPol. And, yes, that was a big mistake, which turned off a lot of people with regards to 3D in general.
It's scary that you know that. Just kidding. Knowledge is everything.
andy sullivan is offline  
post #1109 of 1758 Old 05-08-2015, 05:45 PM
Senior Member
 
scarabaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 425
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabaeus View Post
... and a simple bob-deinterlacer ...
Weave! I meant weave, of course. Ugh. Friday evening, brain is getting cloudy.
scarabaeus is offline  
post #1110 of 1758 Old 05-08-2015, 05:52 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada - West Island: Vancouver, South Direction: Go East, dts:x Films: Under the Skin, 3D, Birdman, x_machina, The Zero Theorem, Interstellar
Posts: 12,735
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5353 Post(s)
Liked: 2308
And yet Passive 3D has its own set of issues.

♦ 4K should be the real Passive 3D savior, but unfortunately 3D is not part of the new UHD Blu-ray standards. ...We live in a stuck 2D world without any 3D future with our upcoming 4K picture high definition/resolution...OLED and LED UHD TVs and 4K Blu-ray movies. ...4K/3D laser front projectors without 4K - 3D content, but only 2K/3D content that is disappearing faster and faster.

PIXAR, IMAX, Marvel, Disney, FOX, Universal, Dreamworks, Sony, WB, Paramount, LG, ...they all lead the pack. ...3D or not, and more likely not.
I think we are way behind technologically wise; our next future generations (grandchildren) might have the opportunity, not us.
NorthSky 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