or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Tech Talk › Here's why 3D is going to be huge
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Here's why 3D is going to be huge - Page 3

post #61 of 99
http://www.televisionbroadcast.com/article/92774 Did you all see this yet? Panasonic and Direct TV are teaming up.
post #62 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogger View Post

http://www.televisionbroadcast.com/article/92774 Did you all see this yet? Panasonic and Direct TV are teaming up.

Quote:


The demo is a preview of DirecTV's three 3D channels a PPV channel, a VOD service, and a free sampler channel set to debut in June, with Panasonic as the exclusive sponsor for one year

http://www.multichannel.com/blog/BIT...3D_Service.php

Quote:


Under the DirecTV partnership disclosed Wednesday, Panasonic will be the exclusive sponsor of DirecTV's 3D channels, which will deliver movies, sports and other entertainment from content producers, including CBS, Fox Sports/FSN, NBC Universal, Turner Broadcasing System and others. The deal allows Panasonic to feature its branding on all DirecTV 3D channels for one year.

DirecTV, a satellite TV provider, plans to distribute in June at no charge a software upgrade that will enable its subscribers to access 3D content on 3D TVs, including Panasonic's Viera Full set. DirecTV expects 3D content to be rolled out this year and in 2011.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=222300138
post #63 of 99
Definitely sounds like good stuff:
"The DirecTV 3D channel suite will include a free sample, demo type feed, an on-demand channel and a pay-per-view feed with movies, documentaries and other entertainment programming. "
post #64 of 99
And the ESPN 3D channel on Direct TV will be exclusively sponsored by Sony.
post #65 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by ribble1001 View Post

Definitely sounds like good stuff:
"The DirecTV 3D channel suite will include a free sample, demo type feed, an on-demand channel and a pay-per-view feed with movies, documentaries and other entertainment programming. "

Sounds like an exact HD start up model.

Art
post #66 of 99
I do not know what the percentage of people leaving 3d movies with headaches are, but my head was slightly throbbing after Avatar and I seldom ever get headaches. Definitely not something I would like to expose myself to on a daily basis. I suspect the percentage is higher than 30%, which would make it not family friendly

Joey
post #67 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Goodcat View Post

Whenever I hear of a new tehnology like this (3d without glasses) I am reminded of the Opti-grab.

It's all fun until people start ending up cross-eyed.

Now THAT's funny LOL!!!
post #68 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeycalda View Post

I do not know what the percentage of people leaving 3d movies with headaches are, but my head was slightly throbbing after Avatar and I seldom ever get headaches. Definitely not something I would like to expose myself to on a daily basis. I suspect the percentage is higher than 30%, which would make it not family friendly

Joey

Hmmm. I wonder if we would eventually get used to it? Or, if it would be a huge benefit for the optical industry. Anyone know if Opticians are behind this "3D TV" move? Or - how about neurologists looking to make more cash? A new set of conspiracy theories?
post #69 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeycalda View Post

I do not know what the percentage of people leaving 3d movies with headaches are, but my head was slightly throbbing after Avatar and I seldom ever get headaches. Definitely not something I would like to expose myself to on a daily basis. I suspect the percentage is higher than 30%, which would make it not family friendly

Joey

I went with 8 people. One complained of a headache. That's 12 1/2% - obviously not scientific, but of the many posts I've read your post is one of the few I've read making this complaint. Maybe they should have everyone check off "yes or no" with respect to eye strain or headache as they leave so the industry could have an idea as to how big a problem this might be.
post #70 of 99
I wonder if smoking pot before viewing would eliminate or severly reduce the potential for eye strain or head aches. This is a non personal question since I don`t use such drugs.
post #71 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

I wonder is smoking pot before viewing would eliminate or severly reduce the potential for eye strain or head aches. This is a non personal question since I don`t use such drugs.

I do not use any drugs either, not since college frat days. HOWEVER, the idea did occur to me as to how much I would have loved to have seen Avatar stoned. Oh, well. I will have to wait until I retire, random drug screens at my job. Haven't had a puff since June 1990. Dr. Smith," Lost in Space," "Oh, the pain, the pain."
post #72 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

I wonder is smoking pot before viewing would eliminate or severly reduce the potential for eye strain or head aches. This is a non personal question since I don`t use such drugs.

Probably make it look like 6D.
post #73 of 99
Quote:


I went with 8 people. One complained of a headache. That's 12 1/2% - obviously not scientific, but of the many posts I've read your post is one of the few I've read making this complaint. Maybe they should have everyone check off "yes or no" with respect to eye strain or headache as they leave so the industry could have an idea as to how big a problem this might be.

I really think the problem is more common than your example. Out of your group one complained, others might have experienced something similar , but are not complainers. Secondly the effects may come on after leaving the movie and getting home, as that was my experience. My eyes were also very red and tired. I do not know the neurological complications of having the eyes tricked into seeing 3D, but I do have a friend who is a neurologist and will be sending him an email shortly to get his opinion. Viewing a 3D movie once every month should pose no problem IMO, but using that technology to watch all of your viewing material at home seems not very healthy as well as uncomfortable IMO. I sit about 8-10 ft back from a 46 inch LED LCD , (off axis) and I certainly would not want to watch it in 3D, as I think it would be more of a hindrance. In my theater room, sitting dead center, looking at an 8 ft wide screen, 3D becomes more attractive to me, but I still would be cautious as to how much I viewed.


Joey
post #74 of 99
Check out #20 in the following. It's for a consumer 3D still and movie camera.

http://www.popsci.com/node/42027
post #75 of 99
One thing for sure, the advent of 3D on television will be the deathknell of male newscasters and commentators. The controller of the TV (males) will never take their eyes off the huge boobs of the then indespensible female presenting the news - news which will never be remembered.....
post #76 of 99
So many posts in this thread. It's really cracking me up.

Here's something I'm wondering about: for the 3D effect to work, you'd have to keep your eyes level (horizontal) right? Especially later at night, I loooove leaning my head sideways on the couch arm rest or something (or my wife's lap) to watch TV. If I were watching 3D material, then my guess is that either the 3D effect would get diminished the more I lean sideways and/or I'd get a head ache from my brain trying to make sense of the images sent to both eyes that are now at the incorrect angle.

Next time I'm at a store where they are show casing 3D TVs, I'll have to test that theory! Has anybody ever done that, or does anybody know about this?

Erik
post #77 of 99
Some glass systems are better than others for lap head resting. Fortunately the worst one being circular polarized IMAX. Linear polarization has a bit more leeway, and Dolby would be fine. I guess you are going to have to try it first and then report. Happy watching.
post #78 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeycalda View Post

I do not know what the percentage of people leaving 3d movies with headaches are, but my head was slightly throbbing after Avatar and I seldom ever get headaches. Definitely not something I would like to expose myself to on a daily basis. I suspect the percentage is higher than 30%, which would make it not family friendly

Joey

I felt the same. The first 2 hours were fine. It was that last 30min or so that got to me.

If 3d could be incorporated into televisions without the use of glasses i'd be all for it. But like others have said, I'm not going to mess around with wearing glasses all the time. They'd end up getting lost, sat on, etc. anyway.
post #79 of 99
You get used to wearing glasses. I never did then after 40, I need them to sit here with you.
post #80 of 99
I will add my experience with seeing Avatar in 3D with polarized lenses. Several times throughout the movie, I found myself having difficulty to focus on the screen and/or the 3D effects.

Plus the 3D was not the same as when you look at objects in real life. It appeared that objects were stacked on top of each other on different 3D planes/slices, with no depth information in-between the planes. It was really weird. For example: You had a close-up of one of the soldiers up-front and a guy in the background. In the middle of them, was no depth information. Maybe I just need to see the movie again at a different theater?
post #81 of 99
Every 3D presentation I've ever seen loses considerable brightness compared to 2D. Has this somehow been fixed? I doubt it.
post #82 of 99
That will never be fixed, it is the nature of the beast. Some cinema systems are more efficient than others. Polarized systems like RealD and IMAX are hogs needing silver screens. Dolby which is a color band system, and Xpand an increasingly popular shutter glasses system are brigther and therefore don't need a silver screen.
post #83 of 99
I see no reason why 3D should make it this time, they tried more than one time to make this the "cinema" experience. I doubt that this will break through this time, although now the presentation technology is not that much more different than 2D. The brightness is an issue and one that involves a second projector. we will see
post #84 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by spatz View Post

I see no reason why 3D should make it this time, they tried more than one time to make this the "cinema" experience.

Just because something failed previously doesn't mean it won't catch on at some later time. For example: consumer surround sound failed miserably when initially released as quad, but look at how many households now have 5.1 systems. I can't predict the future, but it looks like the time might just be right for 3D, both for commercial venues and consumers home theatres.
post #85 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Just because something failed previously doesn't mean it won't catch on at some later time. For example: consumer surround sound failed miserably when initially released as quad, but look at how many households now have 5.1 systems. I can't predict the future, but it looks like the time might just be right for 3D, both for commercial venues and consumers home theatres.

Your right...........bring back BETA!
post #86 of 99
If you want to know what true 3D is vs 2D, cover one of you eyes. You with two eyes see depth if you are not straight on for up close objects. Once things get distant, it mostly appears as 2D even though you are using both eyes. Much of 3D in movies, Avatar included, is gimmicky 3D. See the movie and check out scenes with an without the glasses. Sometimes the up close actors are in 3D, sometimes they are in 2D with background objects having depth. Not the way your two eyes would see a scene in real life. Other times objects fly at you or float in front of your face, reach out and grab them. Not 3D either. 3d is hoow something weould look like when you view it with two eyes opn. For live video, the camera has two lenses close together, to duplicate what you would see. Close obects should have depth. Cameras often use telephoto lenses toget you close. However deepth of field is limited except where there is lots of light and the camera lens can be stopped down (higher f stop number).
post #87 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

If you want to know what true 3D is vs 2D, cover one of you eyes. You with two eyes see depth if you are not straight on for up close objects. Once things get distant, it mostly appears as 2D even though you are using both eyes. Much of 3D in movies, Avatar included, is gimmicky 3D. See the movie and check out scenes with an without the glasses. Sometimes the up close actors are in 3D, sometimes they are in 2D with background objects having depth. Not the way your two eyes would see a scene in real life. Other times objects fly at you or float in front of your face, reach out and grab them. Not 3D either. 3d is hoow something weould look like when you view it with two eyes opn. For live video, the camera has two lenses close together, to duplicate what you would see. Close obects should have depth. Cameras often use telephoto lenses toget you close. However deepth of field is limited except where there is lots of light and the camera lens can be stopped down (higher f stop number).

I agree. The whole CES 3D generated hoopla was a case of no one wanting to be left without a seat when the music ended. I think that companies see 3D as a potential new diversification of their revenue stream...and of course they salivate at the thought of forcing multiple equipment chain upgrades in the process. However I doubt that any company really believes thsi is the next big thing for sure....of course they spin it like that and all.

To me, 3D has too many downsides...tacked on gimmicky effects will be the norm for most budget conscious lazy studios, wearing glasses, and other PQ issues that are sure to arise for perfectionists like us here. For instance....will film still be presented in 24p? Or will it be in 60p?

I hope I am wrong, and that in five years time there is an awesome 3D PJ for 2 grand...and all new Blu rays are 3D. Cool...I am in. But I think the market has pushed a lot of new tech on Joe six pack lately, and their only hope is to make sure 3D is a standard feature that costs the consumer nothing more....force it down our throats in a good way. Like with 1080p. 1080p had Blu rays for its' content based push.....will 3D see the same masive wave of all new BR discs in 3D? That is the only hope for 3D....Content, content, and more content.
post #88 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamelover360 View Post

I agree. The whole CES 3D generated hoopla was a case of no one wanting to be left without a seat when the music ended. I think that companies see 3D as a potential new diversification of their revenue stream...and of course they salivate at the thought of forcing multiple equipment chain upgrades in the process. However I doubt that any company really believes thsi is the next big thing for sure....of course they spin it like that and all.

To me, 3D has too many downsides...tacked on gimmicky effects will be the norm for most budget conscious lazy studios, wearing glasses, and other PQ issues that are sure to arise for perfectionists like us here. For instance....will film still be presented in 24p? Or will it be in 60p?

I hope I am wrong, and that in five years time there is an awesome 3D PJ for 2 grand...and all new Blu rays are 3D. Cool...I am in. But I think the market has pushed a lot of new tech on Joe six pack lately, and their only hope is to make sure 3D is a standard feature that costs the consumer nothing more....force it down our throats in a good way. Like with 1080p. 1080p had Blu rays for its' content based push.....will 3D see the same masive wave of all new BR discs in 3D? That is the only hope for 3D....Content, content, and more content.

I disagree. 3D should be kept as a special venue. A special event. It doesn't need nor is it desirable to have 3D be like HD - a common occurrance.

What we see when we don the glasses is not what we see in real life. It is foreign to us. It is totally manufactured. There isn't nor will there ever be a camera lens that can do what the human eye lens can do.

Even getting rid of the glasses in favor of Autostereoscopic 3D doesn't portray the way we see in real 3D. It too is just a gimmick - just without glasses.

There used to be a saying in my business:

"when everyting is a priority - then nothing is a priority"

The same holds true for:

"when everything is special - then nothing is special"
post #89 of 99
I think that the introduction was premature, mostly because the HDMI 1.4 infrastructure is not yet available. Meanwhile, consumers who are paying attention and who were previously in the market for new surround receivers or preamps are now going to keep their wallets closed until the next generation of these items is available. This can't be good news for any manufacturer of these items. Denon, for example, is just phasing in a new generation of receivers (**10 series), but none are HDMI 1.4 compliant.
post #90 of 99
Given that there will be multiple video sources over zee set top boxes, Discovery, ESPN,yada yada plus Bluray 3D sources from Disney yada yada, this is going to happen. Flat panels will do 3D with glasses but they will work just like they do today in 2D. The 3D ability might add $200 to the MSRP of a panel, so why wouldn`t Joe consumer buy one that will do 3D? Glasses are cheap,LCD shutters IR or RF controlled. What`s the problem? For projection, the take off for legitimate high quality HT will be slow. You could do it great right now but getting the lumens in a high quality 3D ready projector will be expensive. But within a year or two, projectors will be readily available for affordable to many HTs. Bluray 1080p 24 will work fine over 1.3 HDMI. For 1080p 60,we will need 1.4,but it is coming. Remember the video can be run straight to the panel or projector. So receivers won`t become obsolete with only 1.3.o
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Tech Talk
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Tech Talk › Here's why 3D is going to be huge