Ok...Holidays are now over, so, how about 3D now? - Page 19 - AVS Forum
View Poll Results: 3D TV - Is it a Fad?
Fad - Still Current Movie Theater Hype! 0 0%
Here to Stay - Bring on the content! 0 0%
Can only really happen if we have standards! 0 0%
Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #541 of 1824 Old 02-21-2011, 06:57 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabletvsucks View Post

Most of the better quality 2011's will be 3D. We will have no choice but be stuck with them I think.

So don't buy any glasses. Then it becomes just an unused feature. Like having the ability to attach your TV to the internet. That is a very common feature on high end TVs.
Lee Stewart is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #542 of 1824 Old 02-21-2011, 06:59 PM
Member
 
jonasandezekial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 168
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

From my post above:

Uh, yeah I know. I do however think the effect is pretty "negative" if it gives you a bloody headache. So, I'll do it in "moderation" too, ie, never.
jonasandezekial is offline  
post #543 of 1824 Old 02-21-2011, 07:00 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppabk View Post

"Don't watch too much 3D little johnny or you will get cube eyes"



You mean like mother's warnings that if you "do it" too much you will grow hair in the palm of your hand?

Or that it will come off in your hand?

Hey - my mom told me never to try to untie the knot of my belly button. If I did, my arse would fall off!
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #544 of 1824 Old 02-21-2011, 07:05 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonasandezekial View Post

Uh, yeah I know. I do however think the effect is pretty "negative" if it gives you a bloody headache. So, I'll do it in "moderation" too, ie, never.

I would think the rule of thumb would be that if watching 3D results in any physical side affects, a person should immediatly stop and make an appointment with their eye doctor to get their eyes checked out.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #545 of 1824 Old 02-21-2011, 07:10 PM
Member
 
RandyT2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Most peoples eyes are 65mm apart.

Then that means that the measurement they take when fitting you for corrective lenses is a complete waste of time, when they can just give everyone lenses where the optical center is at 65mm, right?

It's a built-in limitation which they understand. It is put right in the center of the adult statistical average because they have no other option. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have an effect on the viewer, especially those who vary considerably from it.

Quote:


Shooting in 3D is not static, it is dynamic depending on what the director wants the viewer to see. The lenses zoom and toe in depending on what is being shot and how close it is to the cameras.

But is still based on an incorrect (for many adults, and most children) STATIC pupillary distance when focused at infinity. And what you are saying the camera does, sounds like it would give you a more realistic 3D image, but does little to help your brain, considering that the screen your eyes focus on is stationary. So you get a constantly changing parallax in the image, based on an arbitrary pupillary distance. No wonder I can't remember the movie, my brain was really busy at the time
RandyT2 is offline  
post #546 of 1824 Old 02-21-2011, 07:10 PM
Member
 
jonasandezekial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 168
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

I would think the rule of thumb would be that if watching 3D results in any physical side affects, a person should immediatly stop and make an appointment with their eye doctor to get their eyes checked out.

You sound like a lobbyist for the industry. If it gives you a headache, I don't think the fault lies with the person's eyes, or weakened eye muscles. I don't think they have found the connection yet.
jonasandezekial is offline  
post #547 of 1824 Old 02-21-2011, 07:23 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyT2 View Post

Then that means that the measurement they take when fitting you for corrective lenses is a complete waste of time, when they can just give everyone lenses where the optical center is at 65mm, right?

Corrective glasses are different from 3D glasses.

Quote:


It's a built-in limitation which they understand. It is put right in the center of the adult statistical average because they have no other option. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have an effect on the viewer, especially those who vary considerably from it.

Do you have any supporting evidence that backs up your theory like a link?

Quote:


But is still based on an incorrect (for many adults, and most children) STATIC pupillary distance when focused at infinity. And what you are saying the camera does, sounds like it would give you a more realistic 3D image, but does little to help your brain, considering that the screen your eyes focus on is stationary. So you get a constantly changing parallax in the image, based on an arbitrary pupillary distance. No wonder I can't remember the movie, my brain was really busy at the time

The screen is stationary but the images you see aren't. And the parallax is artifically created through the use of the cameras. It is what the director wants it to be. It is something under total contol of the camera(s) operator.

Again, you are putting forth a theory. Is there medical evidence that supports it? You can't use data for corrective glasses because 3D glasses do no correction to vision.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #548 of 1824 Old 02-21-2011, 07:32 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonasandezekial View Post

You sound like a lobbyist for the industry. If it gives you a headache, I don't think the fault lies with the person's eyes, or weakened eye muscles. I don't think they have found the connection yet.

http://completewellbeing.com/article/the-3d-effect/

http://www.the33tv.com/videobeta/612...3D-Movies-Eyes
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #549 of 1824 Old 02-21-2011, 07:40 PM
Member
 
RandyT2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

The screen is stationary but the images you see aren't. And the parallax is artifically created through the use of the cameras. It is what the director wants it to be. It is something under total contol of the camera(s) operator.

Again, you are putting forth a theory. Is there medical evidence that supports it? You can't use data for corrective glasses because 3D glasses do no correction to vision.

You are literally all over the place and your strawman arguments are nutty. Nobody said 3D glasses and prescription lenses were the same. That's just buffoonery. But there's a reason why the optical centers of the lenses are placed at the natural center of each individual's vision. Just like looking through glasses meant for another individual is disorienting, so would it be having your brain connected to eyeballs further apart, or closer together than the ones your brain has been using for the past 20 years. Not a hard concept to understand.

And the parallax being displayed on two flat screens is not the same as real parallax being sensed by your eyeballs. So when you try to con the mind into accepting something that conflicts with it's other mechanisms for sensing those things, you get a conflict. How that conflict affects someone, likely varies from individual to individual, but that doesn't make it less real.

Also, I'll provide "medical proof" of something when you do. Get the American Optometric Association to put a hard definition on their use of the word "moderate" while you are at it. They might as well have remained mute for all that statement concluded.
RandyT2 is offline  
post #550 of 1824 Old 02-21-2011, 07:47 PM
Member
 
RandyT2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

Nice links. Are you sure you are pro 3D?
RandyT2 is offline  
post #551 of 1824 Old 02-21-2011, 08:04 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyT2 View Post

You are literally all over the place and your strawman arguments are nutty. Nobody said 3D glasses and prescription lenses were the same. That's just buffoonery. But there's a reason why the optical centers of the lenses are placed at the natural center of each individual's vision. Just like looking through glasses meant for another individual is disorienting, so would it be having your brain connected to eyeballs further apart, or closer together than the ones your brain has been using for the past 20 years. Not a hard concept to understand.

You keep comparing apples to bricks . . . corrective vision glasses to 3D glasses. 3D glasses are more like non-corrective vision sunglasses. You are hypothizing that if a person's eyes are 3mm apart more then the norm, that watching a 3D movie is going to be an issue for them and IMO, that is a bunch of baloney.

Quote:


And the parallax being displayed on two flat screens is not the same as real parallax being sensed by your eyeballs. So when you try to con the mind into accepting something that conflicts with it's other mechanisms for sensing those things, you get a conflict. How that conflict affects someone, likely varies from individual to individual, but that doesn't make it less real.

You only get a conflict (a physical side affect) if you have a vision issue. No vision issue, no conflict. The brain melds the two seperate images and the person see's the illusion of 3D.

Quote:


Also, I'll provide "medical proof" of something when you do. Get the American Optometric Association to put a hard definition on their use of the word "moderate" while you are at it. They might as well have remained mute for all that statement concluded.

When I do what? YOU are the one who is putting forth the hypothsis. It is your job to provide the proof/evidence. It is not my job to prove a negative.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #552 of 1824 Old 02-21-2011, 08:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joseph Dubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Let us just recognize that there has not as yet been enough time to conduct the proper medical research to conclude whether or not 3D, as it is presented as used today, can indeed cause hazards beyond those beyond currently targeted by those warnings. It takes years to draw proper conclusions and the explosion of 3D in the theater and home (in it's current format) is still in it's infancy.

We must also be leery of what the consumer electronics industry tells us because there are so many examples in the past when industry dismissed hazards and safety in lieu of profits. For example, while it warns people not to watch 3D and drink at the same time, retailers are selling 3D sets in mass to taverns and bars throughout the U.K. There is also the matter of a conflict of interest. A half decade ago, and before the report made by the surgeon general, the medical field concluded the connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, however, the tobacco companies touted their own, privately funded medical studies concluded exactly the opposite.

So let's just remain open minded until there is enough evidence to conclude whether or not there are more harmful effects with watching 3D than we theorize at this time Belittling the possibility altogether with sarcastic remarks is nothing more than a sign of insensitivity.
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #553 of 1824 Old 02-21-2011, 08:28 PM
Member
 
RandyT2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

It is not my job to prove a negative.

No, it's apparently your job to shill for an industry which it looks more and more like you benefit from somehow.

The next time you want to maintain that the current implementation of a technology doesn't have possible negative physical side affects for many people who use it, you might want to refrain from posting links which refute your own assertions. Even the American Optometric Association statement has the word "caution" in it.

Oh, that's right, everyone who doesn't like it, or gets headaches just has "broken eyes", even though they have no problems outside of viewing stereoscopic material for any duration. Speaking of "baloney"...
RandyT2 is offline  
post #554 of 1824 Old 02-21-2011, 08:30 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyT2 View Post

Nice links. Are you sure you are pro 3D?

Yep. But at the same time I understand that 3D isn't for everyone. Just like riding a rollercoaster or getting on a boat.

That's why 3DTV will never have the adoption rates of SDTV or HDTV.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #555 of 1824 Old 02-21-2011, 08:40 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyT2 View Post

No, it's apparently your job to shill for an industry which it looks more and more like you benefit from somehow.

No - I am either correcting or calling out suspect misinformation. As opposed to someone like you who refuses to present evidence of this supposed issue you claim exists. FUD just doesn't cut it.

Quote:


The next time you want to maintain that the current implementation of a technology doesn't have possible negative physical side affects for many people who use it, you might want to refrain from posting links which refute your own assertions. Even the American Optometric Association statement has the word "caution" in it.

There are millions of people that watch 3D with no side affects. The fact that the AOA uses words like "caution" and "moderation?" I see no problems there. Those are good guidelines to follow.

Quote:


Oh, that's right, everyone who doesn't like it, or gets headaches just has "broken eyes", even though they have no problems outside of viewing stereoscopic material for any duration. Speaking of "baloney"...

It is evident that you don't understand why people can see normally with no side affects but when they put on 3D glasses, they get side affects. I have already posted links as to why this can happen. Ignoring them is just a sign that you are on some misguided crusade. A "negative Nancy" when it come to 3D.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #556 of 1824 Old 02-21-2011, 08:40 PM
Member
 
jonasandezekial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 168
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Wow, its getting a little nasty in here.
jonasandezekial is offline  
post #557 of 1824 Old 02-21-2011, 08:43 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post

Let us just recognize that there has not as yet been enough time to conduct the proper medical research to conclude whether or not 3D, as it is presented as used today, can indeed cause hazards beyond those beyond currently targeted by those warnings. It takes years to draw proper conclusions and the explosion of 3D in the theater and home (in it's current format) is still in it's infancy.

We must also be leery of what the consumer electronics industry tells us because there are so many examples in the past when industry dismissed hazards and safety in lieu of profits. For example, while it warns people not to watch 3D and drink at the same time, retailers are selling 3D sets in mass to taverns and bars throughout the U.K. There is also the matter of a conflict of interest. A half decade ago, and before the report made by the surgeon general, the medical field concluded the connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, however, the tobacco companies touted their own, privately funded medical studies concluded exactly the opposite.

So let's just remain open minded until there is enough evidence to conclude whether or not there are more harmful effects with watching 3D than we theorize at this time Belittling the possibility altogether with sarcastic remarks is nothing more than a sign of insensitivity.

3D has been around for almost 60 years. So that isn't enough time to determine if it is harmful to a person?
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #558 of 1824 Old 02-21-2011, 08:59 PM
Senior Member
 
twisted_oak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

Sounds like a statistic your wife made up. You have much bigger issues than 3D.

It was a joke. lol

A serious one, however. If women can't tell the difference, then how hard a time will a guy have justifying the purchase? Keep an open mind, it kind of makes sense.
twisted_oak is offline  
post #559 of 1824 Old 02-21-2011, 09:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,378
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 42
I want to be able to vote for all 3 because IMO, it is still a Fad - Still Current Movie Theater Hype! Yet everytime I go to the cinema, what am I hoping to see? 3D of course.

Yet having seen several large HT projection 3D systems, the more I see, the more I want it. I think it Here to Stay - Bring on the content!

Like everyone, I just want to know that the technology I buy into now will be around in years to come, so yes, I agree with Can only really happen if we have standards!

I voted for 2 BTW

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #560 of 1824 Old 02-21-2011, 09:18 PM
Newbie
 
blindwarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm not sure about home 3D.. it seems like if you're a glasses-wearer that it throws it off.
blindwarrior is offline  
post #561 of 1824 Old 02-21-2011, 09:22 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Like everyone, I just want to know that the technology I buy into now will be around in years to come, so yes, I agree with. Can only really happen if we have standards!

I voted for 2 BTW

We do have standards today that will insure that the display you purchased today will be fully compliant with the 3D content of the future. The standards consist of Frame Packing and Frame Compatible. All of the 3DTVs released since last Feb. and those to be released in 2011 and beyond comply with these standards. Only the previous 3D ready DLP RPTVs don't because they were released before the standards were set. But a simple 3D adapter (really a 3D format converter) can be used.

I guess the only issue would be if they ever decide to use 1080x60P Frame Packing instead of the current 1080x24P spec. That would create a problem, but might be solved with a frame rate down converter.

AFAIK, there are no HDMI chips today that can handle that kind of Mz. Nor are there any current sources for that kind of content.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #562 of 1824 Old 02-21-2011, 09:24 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by blindwarrior View Post

I'm not sure about home 3D.. it seems like if you're a glasses-wearer that it throws it off.

Perscription 3D glasses are coming. Both passive and active shutter.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #563 of 1824 Old 02-21-2011, 09:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joseph Dubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Can anybody advise me if the technological apparatuses, environmental conditions and amount of time viewing 3D today is different from that of sixty years ago? I pose this question because many in the medical field say there has not been enough time to conduct research regarding possible side effects of 3D while it has been raised by one who is an expert in the field of everything that science already had sixty years to study it. Is it therefore true that conditions are no different today than they were sixty years ago thus not requiring any further study?
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #564 of 1824 Old 02-21-2011, 09:56 PM
Member
 
RandyT2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

3D has been around for almost 60 years. So that isn't enough time to determine if it is harmful to a person?

But never used to the extent it is currently being planned for.

If I am being "overly negative" about it, it's only in an attempt to counteract your obsessive need to gloss over any of the technology's problems. Kind of like the way you spun that statement up above.

You are on a "crusade" to change the numbers in this poll. I, and others, have been telling you that there are reasons for them that you apparently wish not to see (whatever your motivations.)

Quote:


It is evident that you don't understand why people can see normally with no side affects but when they put on 3D glasses, they get side affects.

It's more evident that you can't grasp the concept of causality. If a person doesn't have vision problems, disorientation or headache issues until they start watching a stereoscopic presentation, then it is something about the stereoscopic presentation that is the cause.

Here's a simple analog for you; Jane, doesn't vomit constantly, but she does on rollercoasters. Johnny doesn't vomit constantly, or on rollercoasters. This does not mean that Jane is on her deathbed, but it does mean that Johnny has a greater resistance to the unnatural forces being placed upon his body than Jane does. The source of the unnatural force is the rollercoaster, not Jane's inability to endure it.

Fanboyism is hard to fight, as it's seldom rooted in anything quantifiable. So this will be my final attempt. You can be a cheerleader if you want, and I would be there cheering with you, if it were an organic movement brought about by market forces. But it's not, and if the poll and a good number of media reports is any indicator, it looks like it's being foisted upon 80% of those who don't want it, while at the same time being forced to pay for it. Frankly, I don't care one way or the other about this, as I got my new sans-3D set at a great price and won't be buying another anytime soon. Enjoy yours knowing you'll be getting that majority of consumers who don't see things your way to subsidize the R&D and production so you can. Go 3D!
RandyT2 is offline  
post #565 of 1824 Old 02-21-2011, 10:02 PM
Senior Member
 
twisted_oak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

3D has been around for almost 60 years. So that isn't enough time to determine if it is harmful to a person?

Dude if you think businesses care that much about our health to test thoroughly you are living in a bubble...

Prime example of a "product" that has been around for over 60 years....

http://news.change.org/stories/coke-...sing-chemicals

If you think that the CEs will do long reaching studies into negative effects, that just wouldn't make much business sense. It is better to make the money and slide by on a class action after tons of money is already made to produce the next generation components.
twisted_oak is offline  
post #566 of 1824 Old 02-21-2011, 10:25 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Wow. Things really getting carried away in here.

I don't doubt that some of us posting here really are sincerely of the belief that 3D might be bad for you. I also have no doubt that I personally disagree with that sentiment.

But comparing it to things like smoking, food additives and cancer is just ridiculous.

I'm probably watching more 3D now than most people here, and I haven't grown a third eye or developed brain cancer.

And my kids are loving 3D movies, and no, I don't consider myself a bad parent for watching 3D with them.

When our children were born, we painted all kinds of colorful, high contrast art on the ceiling, so that it would help develop their eyesight, by giving them things to focus on. THAT'S when their vision was being developed!

Certainly, I wouldn't suggest putting 3D glasses on an infant, no more than I would attempt to teach them to ride a bike. Seriously!

The brain us very plastic and adapts very easily to most situations. Some folks who are a little uncomfortable watching 3D the first time, get use to it.

And those who don't like it don't have to watch it. But it just irritates me to hear people who don't like it rambling on with all these nonsense comparisons to try to turn everyone to their same preference. And then it rapidly becomes posts attacking anyone who is a proponent.

I like it, my kids like it. We haven't grown extra body parts, nor have we forgotten how to see in the real world because of it.

Last point, if a viewer has a narrower or wider gap between their eyes than the average used in production, it doesn't injure you, it just makes the objects in the video be perceived slightly smaller or larger.

Yes, there are conditions in 3D viewing that can be uncomfortable or even bad for your eyes. But those lessons were long ago learnt and are avoided today.
rdjam is offline  
post #567 of 1824 Old 02-21-2011, 10:35 PM
Senior Member
 
Mike W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 271
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This opinion survey could benefit from at least one additional response option:

"Here to stay....but not interested (at least for the present, given the current technology)."
Mike W is offline  
post #568 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 12:24 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyT2 View Post

But never used to the extent it is currently being planned for.

You mean the increase of 3D content availability which will lead to increased viewing? If so, what about the fact that 3D games for the PC and the associated hardware to view them in 3D, has been around for quite a number of years. And that 3D has been in the workplace and used as a tool for almost 20 years.

Quote:


If I am being "overly negative" about it, it's only in an attempt to counteract your obsessive need to gloss over any of the technology's problems. Kind of like the way you spun that statement up above.

If it's a problem, then it should be addressed. I have addressed many problems concerning 3D. I am well aware of the issues at hand.

I have asked you a number of times to provide some evidence of what you think is a problem. You have yet to do so. All I am asking for is proof of statement. That's all. As I have shown, there are problems that can be directly linked to viewing 3D. I have provided independent (of my opinion) evidence. If what you think is a problem . . . is a problem, then there should be information that is available.

Quote:


You are on a "crusade" to change the numbers in this poll. I, and others, have been telling you that there are reasons for them that you apparently wish not to see (whatever your motivations.)

LOL - that's a heck of an accusation. You really believe that I have the ability to sway someone's vote? That's rich. I am willing to guarantee you that most of the people who vote and have voted on this poll, did so BEFORE they read through the thread.

But you are right. I am on a crusade, which consists of providing educational information, correcting misinformation and dispelling myths, having to do with 3D and 3DTV.

BTW, I could care less about the numbers on this poll.

Quote:


It's more evident that you can't grasp the concept of causality. If a person doesn't have vision problems, disorientation or headache issues until they start watching a stereoscopic presentation, then it is something about the stereoscopic presentation that is the cause.

LOL - see - you are learning. That is much different then your previous statement:

"Oh, that's right, everyone who doesn't like it, or gets headaches just has "broken eyes", even though they have no problems outside of viewing stereoscopic material for any duration."

There are certain physical conditions that exist in people that under normal viewing circumstances, don't produce any physical side affects. But, when they don 3D glasses, they are no longer under normal viewing circumstances. The are seeing unnaturally. Instead of each eye seeing 3D as we normally do, now each eye is only seeing a 2D image which the brain assembles for us and completes the illusion of 3D. But to do this without physical side affects, one's eye muscles must be in balance (along with no existing vision conditions like amblyopia, strabismus or optic nerve hypoplasia). If they aren't, then they get physical side affects. The balance is only required to view 3D.

Quote:


Fanboyism is hard to fight, as it's seldom rooted in anything quantifiable. So this will be my final attempt. You can be a cheerleader if you want, and I would be there cheering with you, if it were an organic movement brought about by market forces. But it's not, and if the poll and a good number of media reports is any indicator, it looks like it's being foisted upon 80% of those who don't want it, while at the same time being forced to pay for it. Frankly, I don't care one way or the other about this, as I got my new sans-3D set at a great price and won't be buying another anytime soon. Enjoy yours knowing you'll be getting that majority of consumers who don't see things your way to subsidize the R&D and production so you can. Go 3D!



If people don't want a 3DTV, don't buy one.

If people don't want to see a 3D movie, don't see one.

That seems pretty simple to me. It's a subjective issue. Each person decides for themselves whether 3D is something they like. If they like 3D, they will pursue it as entertainment through various outlets. If they have no desire for 3D, there are plenty of alternatives available for them.

The attitude that irks me is the one where people who don't like it feel it should be gotten rid of. A childish attitude at best.

BTW, still waiting for your evidence that pupillary distance can lead to physical side affects caused by viewing 3D
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #569 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 01:10 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike W View Post

This opinion survey could benefit from at least one additional response option:

"Here to stay....but not interested (at least for the present, given the current technology)."

What technology would you like to see? How can today's 3D tech be improved?
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #570 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 01:57 AM
Senior Member
 
Mike W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 271
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

What technology would you like to see? How can today's 3D tech be improved?

My exposure to 3D is limited to Avatar (theater run, Real 3d), Panasonic Plasma and Sim (twin projector, roughly 60K display) movie content shown at a top notch home theater show (as I recall, one used passive glasses and the other active, but I could be misremembering), and NHL hockey on a current model Sony Bravia (active shutter glasses) at a friend's house.

The 3D effect for all of these displays was impressive (especially so for one of the two features shown on the Sims, a car race. It was amazing); hence, my guess that it is a technology that is here to stay. However, my lack of interest in jumping into 3D right now is based on the need to wear the glasses. Foremost is the very noticeable reduction in image brightness, particularly given that my HT is projector-based. For example, at the theater, during Avatar, when I periodically watched without the glasses, I was dismayed by how much brightness was lost. Same for my other 3D experiences. So for me, it simply comes down to a preference of greater brightness over a 3D image, especially given that I'm very happy with my 2D image.

Second, I can't envision myself wearing 3D glasses happily for hours at a time. I enjoyed Avatar (particularly given the low plot expectations with which I entered) and many of the 3D effects were highly engrossing, but I was sure ready to get those glasses off after 3 hours!

Given that, plus the fact that the overwhelming majority of films we watch (including many classics and foreign films) are not made in 3D, I'm perfectly content to see how the technology evolves over the next two to three years before jumping in. I anticipate that the first piece of equipment that I'll be upgrading anyway is my pre-amp, which is non-HDMI (I run multi-channel analog audio to it from my blu-ray, and am very happy with the sound). If I felt the need to replace it now, I would hedge my bet and get one that is 3D compatible, as I think 3D has a good shot of catching on more widely this time around.

Whether affordable (say <10K ) projector brightness will evolve to easily compensate for the brightness reduction imposed by the glasses, the technology used in the glasses will change, or some techno magicians can conjure up a glassless 3D technology that works around the human visual system and displays a large image, who knows. But given how far the whole HT enterprise has come in the last 10-15 years, I wouldn't rule much out.
Mike W is offline  
Reply Community News & Polls

User Tag List

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