3D Television - Fad or Here To Stay? - Page 7 - AVS Forum
View Poll Results: 3D TV - Is it a Fad?
Fad - Current Theater Hype! 0 0%
Here to Stay - Bring on the content! 0 0%
Can only happen if we have standards! 0 0%
Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 07:35 AM
Senior Member
 
cbcdesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Clevedon. UK
Posts: 425
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Reading this forum, it seems to me that people saying 3D is a fad either don't like 3D, cannot afford 3D or have only just upgraded equipment for HD and cannot justify shelling out several thousand bucks for new gear at the moment.

I am in the latter category regarding gear but wouldn't let this cloud my judgement. I love 3D and think it will almost certainly take off this time. The standards, for the most part are in place, this is an appetite for 3D (Avatar proved that) and as the technology gets better with subsequent generations of TV's demand will grow.

Its no more a fad than Colour or Surround sound was in my opinion. A really good movie can be very entertaining without either one of these technologies too but it doesn't make them any less valuable.

I can see 3D being quite stunning for the right programmes. Nature documentaries to name just one would be stunning.
cbcdesign is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 07:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
steverobertson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: E. Walpole, MA USA
Posts: 5,454
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I just bought a new tv and 3D was even considered great for the theaters but not realistic at home right now
steverobertson is offline  
post #183 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 08:10 AM
Member
 
a silly old man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: cambridge ont canada
Posts: 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
not much interested in it myself but it is here and here to stay
a silly old man is offline  
post #184 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 08:30 AM
Member
 
goodeye38135's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 72
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
"Do you think that 3D TV is just a fad pushed more so my current movies..."

My question is, referring to the original question in quotes above. What?
Do I think it is a fad?.... Yes
pushed more so my current movies.... Huh?
goodeye38135 is offline  
post #185 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 08:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
techman707's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Florida & New York
Posts: 9,348
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcdesign View Post

....Its no more a fad than Colour or Surround sound was in my opinion. A really good movie can be very entertaining without either one of these technologies too but it doesn't make them any less valuable.

I can see 3D being quite stunning for the right programmes. Nature documentaries to name just one would be stunning.


Since this is the fourth time around for 3D and nothing has really changed, the only thing different this time is that they also have consumers to suck money out of. The majority of independent theatres have chosen to NOT invest in 3D at this point. The only reason the large circuit theatres have installed digital 3D is because the film companies have lured them in with financial assistance. If the film companies and the MPAA have their way, films will go directly to your home, skipping the theatres altogether.

I'm waiting for them to perfect holograms.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -Ghandi
techman707 is offline  
post #186 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 09:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
thedeskE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 3,635
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by techman707 View Post

Since this is the fourth time around for 3D and nothing has really changed, the only thing different this time is that they also have consumers to suck money out of.

'They' continue to have no imagination.
thedeskE is offline  
post #187 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 10:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
techman707's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Florida & New York
Posts: 9,348
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedeskE View Post

'They' continue to have no imagination.

The only thing they imagine is getting your money.

At least years ago they had showmen and they tried to be innovative (within the technology that was available at the time). Today, they don't want to spend money, they just want to make it. They're trying to ride in on James Cameron's work. Like Warner Bros "Clash Of The Titans" phony 3D.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -Ghandi
techman707 is offline  
post #188 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 10:48 AM
Member
 
aroide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I saw sports @ CES in 3D. That is what is really going to make 3D compelling. Football with a good 3D camera is a completely different experience. I think its here, but still has a ways to go to be EASY, good quality, and mainstream (standards??).

I've seen 3 methods for 3D. The liquid crystal shutter on plasma is awesome. Polarizers freak my eyes out and are too expensive for displays, and the technique splitting colorspace was good for animation, but not so hot for live.

Since I need to upgrade my 720p Pioneer plasma panel anyways, time to get a 3D ready Panasonic.
aroide is offline  
post #189 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 11:03 AM
Advanced Member
 
longhaul747's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 523
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by techman707 View Post

Since this is the fourth time around for 3D and nothing has really changed, the only thing different this time is that they also have consumers to suck money out of. The majority of independent theatres have chosen to NOT invest in 3D at this point. The only reason the large circuit theatres have installed digital 3D is because the film companies have lured them in with financial assistance. If the film companies and the MPAA have their way, films will go directly to your home, skipping the theatres altogether.

I'm waiting for them to perfect holograms.

As an owner operator of a small and very successful neighborhood independent theater we are getting our ass handed to us over this 3D wave. Never have I seen such a blatant attempt to kill the little guy. Like any theater we want the equipment but the 100K to 150K per screen investment is well beyond what we can budget for. By not investing in it our ability to buy it becomes even farther away.

I feel this 3D wave in the short term has boosted box office receipts but in the long run it will be very damaging. 3D is fine for that novelty film once every year or so but the way they are shoving it down peoples throats it will quickly burn itself out. 3D does not make a bad movie good or for that matter does not necessarily make a good movie better. Maybe I am different but I have a harder time following and being a part of a 3D movie. I think its hiding behind the glasses that has this affect on me.

One of things that drives me nuts is they offer 3D films in 2D 35mm for those theaters that are not equipped for digital 3D presentation. Yet all promotional material they send me blast 3D all over it. They even go as far as to say "See it in Eye Popping 3D" so all of my customers ask why we don't have it in 3D? My crew respond by saying "Sorry we don't charge a premium for 3D here". Most customers are not aware of the hefty premium for these presentations. We are now doing better playing 3D films in 2D because the list of people not digging 3D is growing or don't want to pay the premium. We did rather will well Clash of the Titans and How to Train your Dragon for example.

I think in a nutshell this 3D is just a fad. The biggest push yet and really it does look the best it ever has. However it will always be just a novelty and will be so until they can do it without the glasses. Very little R&D in glassless 3D tech and nobody wants to touch it because of the cost. So we are probably 20 years away at least.
longhaul747 is offline  
post #190 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 11:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
taxman48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 2,541
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 82
I voted for the fad..Keep it just for movie theaters.. I watched Avatar in the movies in 3D, awesome experience.. But I'm not buying another tv, mine is only 1 1/2 yrs old.

taxman48 is offline  
post #191 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 11:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
techman707's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Florida & New York
Posts: 9,348
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by longhaul747 View Post

As an owner operator of a small and very successful neighborhood independent theater we are getting our ass handed to us over this 3D wave. Never have I seen such a blatant attempt to kill the little guy. Like any theater we want the equipment but the 100K to 150K per screen investment is well beyond what we can budget for. By not investing in it our ability to buy it becomes even farther away.

I feel this 3D wave in the short term has boosted box office receipts but in the long run it will be very damaging. 3D is fine for that novelty film once every year or so but the way they are shoving it down peoples throats it will quickly burn itself out. 3D does not make a bad movie good or for that matter does not necessarily make a good movie better. Maybe I am different but I have a harder time following and being a part of a 3D movie. I think its hiding behind the glasses that has this affect on me.

One of things that drives me nuts is they offer 3D films in 2D 35mm for those theaters that are not equipped for digital 3D presentation. Yet all promotional material they send me blast 3D all over it. They even go as far as to say "See it in Eye Popping 3D" so all of my customers ask why we don't have it in 3D? My crew respond by saying "Sorry we don't charge a premium for 3D here". Most customers are not aware of the hefty premium for these presentations. We are now doing better playing 3D films in 2D because the list of people not digging 3D is growing or don't want to pay the premium. We did rather will well Clash of the Titans and How to Train your Dragon for example.

I think in a nutshell this 3D is just a fad. The biggest push yet and really it does look the best it ever has. However it will always be just a novelty and will be so until they can do it without the glasses. Very little R&D in glassless 3D tech and nobody wants to touch it because of the cost. So we are probably 20 years away at least.

I sympathize with you. The poor independent either has to spend a ton of money (mind you, not just a 2K, but you need a 4K for 3D) on your own, while the large circuits get all kinds of perks. Are you aware that with "most" of the 3D pictures coming out, if you don't have digital you can still run 3D film by getting screwed by Technicolor with their 3D film system (so you don't have to have digital to run 3D). However, you would think they invented something new to charge the kind of money Technicolor wants.

As for doing well with Clash of the Titans, it did well, but, it's AFTER they see it that they complain that the 3D stinks. It ruins it for future 3D pictures that might be of better quality.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -Ghandi
techman707 is offline  
post #192 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 11:41 AM
Member
 
coolmilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 68
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The demo of active shutter 3D gave me a headache. I prefer the Real3D solution used at the theaters. I would prefer a no glasses 3D solution or at least a solution the would allow my prescription. Ultimately I would like Pioneer to start making Kuro's again and leave 3D in the theater.
coolmilo is offline  
post #193 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 11:42 AM
Member
 
Steve Crowley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston,Tx
Posts: 149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Get better movies #1. 3D is just a fad that will never be accepted by the majority of homes. Come on, wearing glasses to watch something? I have to wear glasses right now. Do I have to get prescription 3D glasses now? No thank you. The current technology is just fine for me. 2 eyes, 2 ears.

Almost as bad as having 7.1, 9.1 or even 12.1 channels. Does one think they can't get convergence in a 20x15 room with 5 channels? I remember an album of mine that recorded a train going from the right speaker panned to the left speaker. How is it going to go around me? Now that would be something. lol

Klipsch so much it Hz
Steve Crowley is offline  
post #194 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 11:43 AM
Advanced Member
 
MaXPL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 701
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
yeh this poll is not bias at all...

everyone voting against 3D are just haters with sets without 3D. when theyre in the market for a new tv, the majority will buy something with 3D.
MaXPL is offline  
post #195 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 11:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Perpendicular's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: California
Posts: 2,626
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaXPL View Post

everyone voting against 3D are just haters with sets without 3D. when theyre in the market for a new tv, the majority will buy something with 3D.

Totally disagree!
Unless, they are forced into it.

OPPO BETA GROUP
Perpendicular is offline  
post #196 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 12:04 PM
Advanced Member
 
longhaul747's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 523
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by techman707 View Post

I sympathize with you. The poor independent either has to spend a ton of money (mind you, not just a 2K, but you need a 4K for 3D) on your own, while the large circuits get all kinds of perks. Are you aware that with "most" of the 3D pictures coming out, if you don't have digital you can still run 3D film by getting screwed by Technicolor with their 3D film system (so you don't have to have digital to run 3D). However, you would think they invented something new to charge the kind of money Technicolor wants.

As for doing well with Clash of the Titans, it did well, but, it's AFTER they see it that they complain that the 3D stinks. It ruins it for future 3D pictures that might be of better quality.

At Showest this year Technicolor put on a 35mm 3D demonstration using a split lens process. Some of the 3D animated stuff looked alright (at best) but the live action stuff looked like garbage. Plus the overall detail seemed cut it half and since they split the film in half to get 2 3D images you are essentially getting dual 16mm images. On high quality film stock its still passable but I was just not impressed and you still deal with weave and shutter ghosting issues.

When they started going over terms I essentially told the rep at Technicolor to F**K off. It was something like $2000 up front fee for each film you play using the lens up to maximum of $32,000 give or take a few thousand. I think the terms are outrageous for such a compromising system. Since Buena Vista does not support this (3D's biggest supporter) format then forget it.

Another company is offering essentially the same process and is working with studios to just include the lens in the film can. He has been around before and it looks like he is not being successful but if the studios really want this 3D thing to take off they would adopt this process and include the split lens in the can. It's 3D that sells and not necessarily the Digital aspect of the presentation. Digital is a foreign word to your typical blue collar Joe the plummer types. 3D they do understand.

One thing that really upsets me is theaters playing a 3D film in regular 2D pay the same percentage to the studios as the 3D theaters do. Yet all marketing points to the 3D presentation and its pretty much their party. We basically get royally screwed over with 3D films. Its at the point that I no longer want to play a 3D film in 2D at my theater. If every theater did this 3D would not succeed. Remember only like 1/3 of the theaters have Digital 3D capability.
longhaul747 is offline  
post #197 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 12:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
techman707's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Florida & New York
Posts: 9,348
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Crowley View Post

Do I have to get prescription 3D glasses now? No thank you. The current technology is just fine for me. 2 eyes, 2 ears.


I absolutely agree with you. You're are just reiterating the SAME COMPLAINTS I've heard from people since the first 3D movies came out in the theatres in the 1950s. Like I've already said, nothing has really changed. I will admit that when they first ran IMAX 3D on film with the shutter glasses, I was impressed, but only as a novelty.

Back in the 1970's I met Alvin Marks, the inventor of polarized film that made 3D movies possible to begin with. They had a company in Whitestone, New York. At the time I worked for a theatre chain that Marks told they could run ALL movies in 3D. I was blown away at the time when I was told that. The company I worked for was so suspicious that they told me to bring my own film to test with. In the end, what they had done is convert a 35mm projector to be able to project 2 frames simultaneously (one on top of the other) and then converged the images with their 3D lens attachment. Believe it or not, it sort of worked.....but only on scenes with action.

Again while it was fun as a novelty, it went nowhere.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -Ghandi
techman707 is offline  
post #198 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 12:44 PM
Member
 
Veeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroide View Post

I saw sports @ CES in 3D. That is what is really going to make 3D compelling. Football with a good 3D camera is a completely different experience.

This makes no sense. How would it be a different experience? What camera angle are they using? On the field camera? Why would I want to watch a game from "on the field"? I'd rather be in the stands or barring that, at home in HD from a ways back so I can see all of the action.

Same is true for hockey, baseball, etc.

So could someone please present a cogent argument for how sports could be better with 3D? People keep using the "once sports gets it, it'll take off!" argument, but it has no merit that I can see.
Veeper is offline  
post #199 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 12:51 PM
Advanced Member
 
longhaul747's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 523
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think the only real long term success for 3D is the gaming industry. However talking with a friend who works in the gaming industry the amount of coding that goes into a 3D game is incredible. Most consumers will not be willing to pay what a 3D game might have to be sold for.

Sports in 3D sounds like a good idea. However imagine being at a Super Bowl party. You have all sorts of food and snacks and really a highly social event. Its really more about being with your friends and family and having good time then the game itself. Everyone would put on 3D glasses for the start of the game. Everybody would be excited at first and say how cool the 3D is. Of coarse as soon as things start becoming more social everybody is going to feel goofy talking to one another with the glasses on. So they will want to take them off. At this point the 3D would be more annoying then anything else.

3D will only work in this type of situation of they could do it without the glasses.
longhaul747 is offline  
post #200 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 12:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
techman707's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Florida & New York
Posts: 9,348
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by longhaul747 View Post

At Showest this year Technicolor put on a 35mm 3D demonstration using a split lens process. Some of the 3D animated stuff looked alright (at best) but the live action stuff looked like garbage. Plus the overall detail seemed cut it half and since they split the film in half to get 2 3D images you are essentially getting dual 16mm images. On high quality film stock its still passable but I was just not impressed and you still deal with weave and shutter ghosting issues.

When they started going over terms I essentially told the rep at Technicolor to F**K off. It was something like $2000 up front fee for each film you play using the lens up to maximum of $32,000 give or take a few thousand. I think the terms are outrageous for such a compromising system. Since Buena Vista does not support this (3D's biggest supporter) format then forget it.

Another company is offering essentially the same process and is working with studios to just include the lens in the film can. He has been around before and it looks like he is not being successful but if the studios really want this 3D thing to take off they would adopt this process and include the split lens in the can. It's 3D that sells and not necessarily the Digital aspect of the presentation. Digital is a foreign word to your typical blue collar Joe the plummer types. 3D they do understand.

One thing that really upsets me is theaters playing a 3D film in regular 2D pay the same percentage to the studios as the 3D theaters do. Yet all marketing points to the 3D presentation and its pretty much their party. We basically get royally screwed over with 3D films. Its at the point that I no longer want to play a 3D film in 2D at my theater. If every theater did this 3D would not succeed. Remember only like 1/3 of the theaters have Digital 3D capability.

The reason Technicolor 3D didn't look so good is because IT'S THE SAME OLD CRAP AS BEFORE (half frame), only the film companies are letting Technicolor screw the independent exhibitors for prints that don't cost them any more money to produce. As for their lenses....NOTHING NEW, the only thing new is the screwing.

btw-If you have Simplex projectors, etc. and need parts (cheap), I'm your guy.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -Ghandi
techman707 is offline  
post #201 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 12:52 PM
Advanced Member
 
greaser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 734
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 29
On Friday i stopped at BB to see a 3D demo. There was a probably 50 inch panny 3D hdtv on display showing various scenes on a blu ray player. I put the glasses on and was totally dismayed at what i saw. Now my eyes aren't bad,and what i saw was a lot of wavy lines so i took the glasses off and saw the same thing as i did with the glasses on. I couldn't even tell the difference. I don't know if it was the tv or the material they were showing, but it looked like hell. If what i saw is the same thing Hollyweird is trying to push, then i won't ever fall into the 3D tv trap,and i don't know why anybody would. I've seen much better 3D in older 3D movies from the 50's and 60's. 3D tv is just more Hollyweird BS. IMO. G.
greaser is offline  
post #202 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 12:59 PM
Member
 
milehighxr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcfish19 View Post

What we need more than 3D is better actors and origional scripts. Most of Hollywood is very boring right now. I can't sit through yet another comic book origin story. Enough already.

Here, here. 3d is stupid for the living room, and not that great in theaters. To me 3d is a cop out for hollywood just like reality TV is for the networks. Bring back great programming/movies before fiddling with something like 3d, VR, or any nonsense like that.
milehighxr is offline  
post #203 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 01:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
techman707's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Florida & New York
Posts: 9,348
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by greaser View Post

On Friday i stopped at BB to see a 3D demo. There was a probably 50 inch panny 3D hdtv on display showing various scenes on a blu ray player. I put the glasses on and was totally dismayed at what i saw. Now my eyes aren't bad,and what i saw was a lot of wavy lines so i took the glasses off and saw the same thing as i did with the glasses on. I couldn't even tell the difference. I don't know if it was the tv or the material they were showing, but it looked like hell. If what i saw is the same thing Hollyweird is trying to push, then i won't ever fall into the 3D tv trap,and i don't know why anybody would. I've seen much better 3D in older 3D movies from the 50's and 60's. 3D tv is just more Hollyweird BS. IMO. G.


It sounds like it's just BB ineptitude. They make it appear worse then it actually is.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -Ghandi
techman707 is offline  
post #204 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 02:00 PM
Advanced Member
 
mike_pro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 710
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Perhaps try turning the glasses on?

Quote:
Originally Posted by greaser View Post

On Friday i stopped at BB to see a 3D demo. There was a probably 50 inch panny 3D hdtv on display showing various scenes on a blu ray player. I put the glasses on and was totally dismayed at what i saw. Now my eyes aren't bad,and what i saw was a lot of wavy lines so i took the glasses off and saw the same thing as i did with the glasses on. I couldn't even tell the difference. I don't know if it was the tv or the material they were showing, but it looked like hell. If what i saw is the same thing Hollyweird is trying to push, then i won't ever fall into the 3D tv trap,and i don't know why anybody would. I've seen much better 3D in older 3D movies from the 50's and 60's. 3D tv is just more Hollyweird BS. IMO. G.

mike_pro is offline  
post #205 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 02:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
techman707's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Florida & New York
Posts: 9,348
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_pro View Post

Perhaps try turning the glasses on?


"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -Ghandi
techman707 is offline  
post #206 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 02:26 PM
Member
 
45rpm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I am sure that a 3D-TV without glasses will be developed soon. All they have to do is to develop a glass panel that uses the same technology they use for the 3D glasses that you can turn on and off just like the glasses.
45rpm is offline  
post #207 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 02:34 PM
Senior Member
 
[KYA]Mega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX, USA
Posts: 436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 21
I personally think the wording of this poll is biased. First of all, it should be a Yes/No question. Splitting the yes's already makes the no's look bigger, but then factoring in the language, it leads you into a "no", I mean any smart person wants to "Save your money!" right? Where are the exclamation points on the "yes" choices? Also, if you were already purchasing a TV, do you really pay that much of a premium for 3D support?

Even still, I'm a bit surprised by the responses here. I see Color, Discreet Surround, High Definition and Three Dimensions all on equal ground. None make a bad movie good, but all add to the senses for a more visceral experience if done correctly, and can detract if done poorly.

I for one, totally became a participant in the "Avatar" world in 3D, and after about 15 minutes of adjustment, was more like "what glasses? I'm on Pandora!"

For "Clash of the Titans" I never lost the sensation of "I'm watching a flat screen trying to be 3D through a pair of sunglasses". So it makes a huge difference if it's done well or not, but I wouldn't let that taint my view of the technology itself.

I'm not looking forward to the $$ it will cost me to support 3D at home since my HT is pretty current except for 3D support, but that doesn't mean I don't want 3D. I'm just going to have to wait a while (which could be a blessing in disguise since there may be a format war or a few iterations until it is done right).

[KYA]Mega is offline  
post #208 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 02:36 PM
Member
 
45rpm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaXPL View Post

yeh this poll is not bias at all...

everyone voting against 3D are just haters with sets without 3D. when theyre in the market for a new tv, the majority will buy something with 3D.

You are absolutely correct. When I demoed the 3DTV in BB, it looked cool for about 5 minutes, then for some reason, I started to slowly hate it. So now I am a 3D hater that will have a set without 3D for awhile.
45rpm is offline  
post #209 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 02:40 PM
Senior Member
 
[KYA]Mega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX, USA
Posts: 436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by 45rpm View Post

I am sure that a 3D-TV without glasses will be developed soon. All they have to do is to develop a glass panel that uses the same technology they use for the 3D glasses that you can turn on and off just like the glasses.

The key to a 3D picture is to send a different signal to each eye. So polarizing or shuttering the screen would not help.

There is already a 3D technology that works without glasses, but it involves sitting in a VERY specific location so each eye is looking into a different view. But the drawback is it's a single-user experience. Anyone sitting to the left or right of that user doesn't perceive the 3D.

So the problem is not trivial. But if someone does come up with a mass marketable way for everyone on the couch to see a 3D picture without glasses or holding their heads still will become a bazillionaire.

[KYA]Mega is offline  
post #210 of 2615 Old 05-16-2010, 02:50 PM
Senior Member
 
[KYA]Mega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX, USA
Posts: 436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Crowley View Post

The current technology is just fine for me. 2 eyes, 2 ears.

Actually, the current 2D technology is 1 eye, 2 ears. 3D is literally stereo for your eyes. 2D is the visual equivalent of mono sound.

Quote:
Almost as bad as having 7.1, 9.1 or even 12.1 channels. Does one think they can't get convergence in a 20x15 room with 5 channels?

Now this I agree with. You can put a sound anywhere in a plane with 4 channels.

The purpose of having more than that are so you don't have to sit in the sweet spot. In other words, if you sit to the right of center, and there is no center channel, then you'll hear the right speaker louder than the left, and you won't perceive the voice as coming from the screen. But you can make sound "come from your screen" with no center channel if it's imaged properly between the FL and FR and your speakers are in phase (and you sit in the sweet spot).

[KYA]Mega is offline  
Reply Community News & Polls

Tags
Polls

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