or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Tech Talk › 3D Television Opinion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

3D Television Opinion Thread - Page 3

post #61 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

3D is stereo for your eyes. You see 3D every minute of every day you open both of your eyes. Based on the different angle that each eye is looking at the objects in front of you, your brain "sees 3D" from the pair of 2D images coming into each of your eyes.

When your brain sees this pair of 2D images... one for each eye, the difference in angle from the two points of view gives your brain the information it needs to perceive depth. It's just like the way you see 3D in everyday life.

Problem is it is not just like the way you see 3D in everyday life, your brain does not see 3D from a pair of 2D images coming into each of your eyes.

Eyes have lenses and depth of focus, studys on reliably predicting object distance with binocular and monocular vision seem to show that the binocular vision is not the only and maybe not the main method used by the brain to figure out accurate object distance, beyond objects right next to you. Visual acuity detail resolution by focus distance of the eye might be an important factor.

Also the irises and head can move. Most 3D displays only use two fixed viewpoints one for each eye, with no head tracking.

Field of view is also alot bigger than with most displays, the real world does not appear in a little window in the middle of your field of vision like a relatively small display. This is particularly bad at emulating believable motion as peripheral vision is more motion sensitive.

Convergence without accomodation and movement parallax is not how the you see the real 3D world. They still have a way to go before it is a perfect emulation of reality. But it only needs to be good enough for the eyes/brain to figure out, as they want you to be able to comprehend your surroundings.
For moving points of view they would also have to trick the inner ear into beleving you were moving.
post #62 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by dovercat View Post

Problem is it is not just like the way you see 3D in everyday life, your brain does not see 3D from a pair of 2D images coming into each of your eyes.

Eyes have lenses and depth of focus, studys on reliably predicting object distance with binocular and monocular vision seem to show that the binocular vision is not the only and maybe not the main method used by the brain to figure out accurate object distance, beyond objects right next to you. Visual acuity detail resolution by focus distance of the eye might be an important factor.

Also the irises and head can move. Most 3D displays only use two fixed viewpoints one for each eye, with no head tracking.

Field of view is also alot bigger than with most displays, the real world does not appear in a little window in the middle of your field of vision like a relatively small display. This is particularly bad at emulating believable motion as peripheral vision is more motion sensitive.

You're right that focal-distance is also another cue that the brain uses to perceive depth.

Of course, focal distance is also lacking in conventional 2D moving images.

Head movement can also affect depth perception (as it also affects 360 degree sound perception) but most move viewers say seated with relatively little head movement during 3D films.

The bottom line is that we see 3D from the two different images coming into our two different eyes... and in real life we have focal distance as a further assist to that perception. However, since people *do* see 3D imagery even with flat left/right 2D images, 3D perception, in large part, does work with discrete left/right pictures. Two channel 3D video is the best we can do right now given current technology, and it works exceedingly well when done properly. I still enjoy my 3D stereoscope cards with my Victorian stereo-viewer despite the fact that the images themselves only allow a single point of focus... the 3D effect can be stunning and comfortable on the eyes once one gets adjusted.

I agree that the larger the image the better... the more field of vision that's affected the better for 3D. Of course, that's generally true of the film genre, which is why movie theater screens typically offer an 30 degree viewing angle for their center rows. if high-end movie reproduction is anyone's goal, I'd highly recommend a display system capable of delivering a wide-angle experience that properly fills ones field of vision, in a darkened room to minimize the distraction of the surrounding environment. That also happens to be an ideal way to view 3D content.

Quote:


Convergence without accomodation and movement parallax is not how the you see the real 3D world. They still have a way to go before it is a perfect emulation of reality. But it only needs to be good enough for the eyes/brain to figure out, as they want you to be able to comprehend your surroundings.
For moving points of view they would also have to trick the inner ear into beleving you were moving.

Agreed. I'd never suggest that twin 1080 x 1020 images encapsulate the full gamete of what's possible for human perception. The current method, for most viewers, is enough "for the eyes/brain to figure out", though I'd welcome continued technology improvement at any time, for all video and audio reproduction issues.
post #63 of 129
DC
I think the "stereo for your eyes" is a very good analogy, simply because all the issues you raise about what's missing from such an approach for it to be "a perfect emulation of reality" apply both to audio and video. For sound effects in 5.1 for a moving vehicle, we can get the sound to move properly but the inner ear isn't convinced either.
post #64 of 129
I wonder how many of you naysayers have bluray players? The tone and tenor of the objections to 3D I hear are exactly the same as those that arose during the HDDVD/Bluray rollout. "The existing format is good enough for me" "Not enough content" "Too expensive" And yet here you sit, bluray player in hand...

3D TV is here. Based on what I've seen this week, it's not a prototype, it's a fully developed product that will ship from multiple manufacturers in the next 6 months. And it's as big an advance as HD was to SD, maybe more so. Most of us will buy, just a question of when and where.

John
post #65 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Robert View Post

I wonder how many of you naysayers have bluray players? The tone and tenor of the objections to 3D I hear are exactly the same as those that arose during the HDDVD/Bluray rollout. "The existing format is good enough for me" "Not enough content" "Too expensive" And yet here you sit, bluray player in hand...

3D TV is here. Based on what I've seen this week, it's not a prototype, it's a fully developed product that will ship from multiple manufacturers in the next 6 months. And it's as big an advance as HD was to SD, maybe more so. Most of us will buy, just a question of when and where.

John

Yep.

the HD DVD/BD debate was but one recent example of the typical reaction against AV progress. We heard objections from many with DVD collections that HD wasn't necessary, and we heard objections from 720p projector owners that 1080p was a waste of money and wasn't worth it, and we heard from laserdisc collectors that DVD was heresy and wasn't nearly as good (well with lossless audio on LD they were 1/2 right) and we heard that anamorphic resolution wasn't really worth it and that 4x3 letterboxed transfers on DVD were good enough because folks were going to keep their NTSC 4x3 sets until they died....

3D is just the latest excuse for sour grapes over the idea of having to buy new gear. These same people will all be converts in a few years time and then forget that they ever complained.
post #66 of 129
I walked into the Sony Style Store today and walked around the back corner and found an employee turning on the 3D demo on their brand new 3d Bravia. I couldn't believe it was there. I had to wait a minute because the guy couldn't get it to work and told me that it was a prototype and needed an hour to warm up. Anyway, after asking him if he was sure about that, I walked around for a bit until I saw the manager come over and fix it. I walked right up and checked it out with my kids. I really thought this would be a gimmick. I didn't think too much of it. I'll admit I was wrong. Saw a demo of some nature footage, a FIFA game and some 3D PS3 games like Wipeout HD and Little Big Planet. I was floored. I think it's going to be worth it to me. I did notice that I had some eye strain after removing the glasses and it took my eyes a minute to adjust. That's NOT typical for me. Looking like a purchase for me.
post #67 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ausdaddy View Post

I walked into the Sony Style Store today and walked around the back corner and found an employee turning on the 3D demo on their brand new 3d Bravia. I couldn't believe it was there. I had to wait a minute because the guy couldn't get it to work and told me that it was a prototype and needed an hour to warm up. Anyway, after asking him if he was sure about that, I walked around for a bit until I saw the manager come over and fix it. I walked right up and checked it out with my kids. I really thought this would be a gimmick. I didn't think too much of it. I'll admit I was wrong. Saw a demo of some nature footage, a FIFA game and some 3D PS3 games like Wipeout HD and Little Big Planet. I was floored. I think it's going to be worth it to me. I did notice that I had some eye strain after removing the glasses and it took my eyes a minute to adjust. That's NOT typical for me. Looking like a purchase for me.

just before Christmas I saw them haggling their wireless sets to work, that were full of glitches and wash out from the side lol
post #68 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

Yep.

the HD DVD/BD debate was but one recent example of the typical reaction against AV progress. We heard objections from many with DVD collections that HD wasn't necessary, and we heard objections from 720p projector owners that 1080p was a waste of money and wasn't worth it, and we heard from laserdisc collectors that DVD was heresy and wasn't nearly as good (well with lossless audio on LD they were 1/2 right) and we heard that anamorphic resolution wasn't really worth it and that 4x3 letterboxed transfers on DVD were good enough because folks were going to keep their NTSC 4x3 sets until they died....

3D is just the latest excuse for sour grapes over the idea of having to buy new gear. These same people will all be converts in a few years time and then forget that they ever complained.

3D is just another example of the industry too eagerly pushing a new product. Maybe HDTV was slow to be adopted by the masses because the industry couldn't decide between 720p or 1080i. Perhaps Blueray would have been adopted more quickly if there hadn't been a stupid format war. Now with 3D we can see they'll be lining them up in showrooms before HDMI 1.4 is implemented. If the industry would stop pushing out half baked products maybe some of us would get more excited.

And yes these same people will probably be converts in a few years, when the technology has matured enough to be properly implemented. In my honest opinion, only a fool would rush out to buy a 3D TV before HDMI 1.4 is standard.
post #69 of 129
I've done some reading and I have yet to find a really concrete answer as to why the major home electronics companies have gone with the active shutter technology versus the polarized glasses RealD technology for consumer monitors or even home theater digital projectors. It seems the shutter style glasses are going to be prone to a lot more issues.....

T.B.
post #70 of 129
The shutter glasses are the only (cheap) ones that can be used with existing screens. Infitec is too expensive for now (maybe for a while with the processor costs).
post #71 of 129
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

I've done some reading and I have yet to find a really concrete answer as to why the major home electronics companies have gone with the active shutter technology versus the polarized glasses RealD technology for consumer monitors or even home theater digital projectors. It seems the shutter style glasses are going to be prone to a lot more issues.....

T.B.

Wondered that myself. Probably just another way to make money.
post #72 of 129
I'm certainly interested in 3D TV at some point. However, a lot of people I read say it's really cool for about 10 minutes. There is a question as to if people will actually watch 3D programing for long periods of time. I'm fine with a TV having the ability it's just not going to be a selling point for me anytime soon.
post #73 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Robert View Post

3D TV is here. Based on what I've seen this week, it's not a prototype, it's a fully developed product that will ship from multiple manufacturers in the next 6 months. And it's as big an advance as HD was to SD, maybe more so. Most of us will buy, just a question of when and where.

John

You are so right John. It is going to be huge. I don't think anyone will be buying a 2D only TV by next Christmas. Whether the TV is plasma, LCD, or OLED, it will be able to display 3D as well as "normal" 2D programs. For people that want to see everything in 3D, almost every manufacterer was showing their version of normal 2D HDTV converted in the TV to 3D. Sometimes the effect was good, and sometimes not. But you always have the choice to watch 2D just like you do now without any glasses. My experinence was that the polarized glasses, like I used with Avatar and some projector screenings at CES, would sometimes have the ghost image---I think they are using circular polarization now. Shuttered glasses are a whole different animal where each eye gets it's own picture at 60 frames per second. While one eye is on, the other eye is off, which eliminates any ghosting images. While the glasses may bother some people, good 3D without glasses is still many years away. The demos I saw of these glassless systems were such low resolution and poor quality that anyone on this forum would find them laughable compared to the shuttered glasses system. I could see where someone might use the low rez 3D without glasses for advertising billboards. Even people on this forum might look at such an ad and think it looks OK even with the low resolution.
post #74 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by fire407 View Post

You are so right John. It is going to be huge. I don't think anyone will be buying a 2D only TV by next Christmas. Whether the TV is plasma, LCD, or OLED, it will be able to display 3D as well as "normal" 2D programs. For people that want to see everything in 3D, almost every manufacterer was showing their version of normal 2D HDTV converted in the TV to 3D. Sometimes the effect was good, and sometimes not. But you always have the choice to watch 2D just like you do now without any glasses. My experinence was that the polarized glasses, like I used with Avatar and some projector screenings at CES, would sometimes have the ghost image---I think they are using circular polarization now. Shuttered glasses are a whole different animal where each eye gets it's own picture at 60 frames per second. While one eye is on, the other eye is off, which eliminates any ghosting images. While the glasses may bother some people, good 3D without glasses is still many years away. The demos I saw of these glassless systems were such low resolution and poor quality that anyone on this forum would find them laughable compared to the shuttered glasses system. I could see where someone might use the low rez 3D without glasses for advertising billboards. Even people on this forum might look at such an ad and think it looks OK even with the low resolution.



Question for you.... which companies were showing the 2D to 3D conversion besides toshiba? i know the cell TV does it, but do any of the sony/samsungs/LGs? And from what you saw, which systems did it the best?

Any particular standout TVs in the way of 3D?
post #75 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

I've done some reading and I have yet to find a really concrete answer as to why the major home electronics companies have gone with the active shutter technology versus the polarized glasses RealD technology for consumer monitors or even home theater digital projectors. It seems the shutter style glasses are going to be prone to a lot more issues.....

T.B.

The answer is very simple.

LCD shutter glasses can basically turn any HDTV that can do 120Hz into a 3D TV since you then have 60Hz per eye per second. The only added cost to the HDTV for the manufacturer to convert it from 2D 120Hz to 3D is a jack to send the sync-signal to a transmitter for the glasses. Bascially, it adds no cost to make a 3D HDTV this way.

Polarized light means a whole different type of light engine for the TV or screen design, and maybe even having to have two separate panels stacked to create the left and right eye simultaneously. Basically, polarized light means a whole different type of HDTV entirely... more $$$.

So, if you're a consumer and two 1080p 3D HDTVs are for sale, and one is $1500 and one is $3500, which seems like a better deal to you? Hence the reason why you see so much use of LCD shutter glasses for these first-generation 3D sets.

With time and manufacturing, other 3D technologies will come down in cost and may become more common.
post #76 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpmurr View Post

I'm certainly interested in 3D TV at some point. However, a lot of people I read say it's really cool for about 10 minutes. There is a question as to if people will actually watch 3D programing for long periods of time. I'm fine with a TV having the ability it's just not going to be a selling point for me anytime soon.

Have you seen Avatar in 3D? Have you seen any IMAX movies in 3D? UP in 3D? Coraline in 3D? Why not find out for yourself if you only think it's cool for 10 minutes or not. How can anyone else make up your mind for you when it's your personal enjoyment that's the question?

And remember, all 3D TVs will work in 2D mode even with 3D content if someone wants to watch in 2D, so the choice to go 2D with anything at any time will always be available for the consumer.
post #77 of 129
This is just the latest effort to sell decades old 3D tech. It's more like one-dimensional 3D, where the viewer needs to be locked onto the center of the screen/image. I think it's just another fad.
post #78 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitetrash66 View Post

Any particular standout TVs in the way of 3D?

I thought that the Panasonic plasma TV's had the most depth of field and relatively natural looking images. The sports clips (the 2010 Soccer World Cup will be in 3D) were especially cool. They will range in sizes up to 65" with a price that is $500 to $1000 above their current top line sets.

I was most interested in FP 3D but many companies showed products that aren't either affordable or available. For instance, the JVC FP 3D demo involved two aligned top-of-the-line projectors showing 4K resolution. LG had a static FP unit that is two light engines in one body but I didn't see a demo. Seems like flat panels will lead the way...

John
post #79 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill4903485 View Post

This is just the latest effort to sell decades old 3D tech. It's more like one-dimensional 3D, where the viewer needs to be locked onto the center of the screen/image. I think it's just another fad.

Again not true, at least with the Panny units. I intentionally sat at 30 degrees the second time with no loss of effect...

John
post #80 of 129
4K2K 3Dtv's,3840x2160 pixel= eight million pixel.
PLASMA's 42inch can handle two million pixel max.
Is the end of PLASMA-technology nearby?
post #81 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Robert View Post

Again not true, at least with the Panny units. I intentionally sat at 30 degrees the second time with no loss of effect...

John

Not that you lose the effect, just the dimensionality of real life. Real life is visually dynamic, this technology is static. Real life also only demands glasses for the visually impared. Certainly I can't see consumers paying a premium for this technology. Even for free, it doesn't appeal to me.
post #82 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Robert View Post

Again not true, at least with the Panny units. I intentionally sat at 30 degrees the second time with no loss of effect...

John

Yep.

The beauty of active LCD shutter glasses is that they deliver crystal-clear 3D imagery from whatever viewing angle you can watch the same set in 2D.

I used to feel really strongly about the polarized eyewear option as a superior product, and in some ways it is in that it's flicker-free and is comfortable to wear. But as long as the refresh rate is high enough (IMO, over 60Hz per eye... 120Hz per eye would be ideal), active eyewear is great and doesn't reduce brightness.
post #83 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill4903485 View Post

Not that you lose the effect, just the dimensionality of real life. Real life is visually dynamic, this technology is static. Real life also only demands glasses for the visually impared. Certainly I can't see consumers paying a premium for this technology. Even for free, it doesn't appeal to me.

Your 2D HDTV images are certainly no less "static" than 3D images making them even less like the dimensionality of real life. Do 2D images appeal to you, even though the same criticism can be levied against them?
post #84 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill4903485 View Post

Real life is visually dynamic, this technology is static.

Obviously, David and I had the same question. You don't watch or enjoy current HD or SD TV or Blurays?

John
post #85 of 129
I'm blind in one eye so that pretty much leaves me out ...

But even if I could see with both eyes, it's pretty doubtful I would jump on the 3D bandwagon anyway. A lot of people just upgraded to a flat screen, I would be surprised if they want to upgrade yet again.

I wish manufacturers would concentrate their resources on improving image quality instead of these gimmicks which will go the way of the dodo bird.
post #86 of 129
I don't see how anyone can really fathom 3D OLED at this point when we don't even have regular consumer level models of OLED tvs available in stores at larger sizes. I'm not completely against 3D tech but I will not be an early adopter that is for sure. i'm also really curious as to how they will handle this for most home theatre junkies who run through AVRs that possibly won't be able to handle the proper bandwidth requirements for such a feat.

Again I am not against the tech but I know I am not replacing my Kuro PRO151FD anytime soon nor am I replacing my $1900 Yamaha receiver I just picked up last year. 3D will be on my back burner for awhile while I watch and see how it plays out.
post #87 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by uni_panther View Post

I don't see how anyone can really fathom 3D OLED at this point when we don't even have regular consumer level models of OLED tvs available in stores at larger sizes. I'm not completely against 3D tech but I will not be an early adopter that is for sure. i'm also really curious as to how they will handle this for most home theatre junkies who run through AVRs that possibly won't be able to handle the proper bandwidth requirements for such a feat.

Again I am not against the tech but I know I am not replacing my Kuro PRO151FD anytime soon nor am I replacing my $1900 Yamaha receiver I just picked up last year. 3D will be on my back burner for awhile while I watch and see how it plays out.

by all means watch and wait. You have nothing to lose, because:

* 3D gear will get better and cheaper the longer you wait (as will 2D gear of course)

* Your current system satisfies you already

* You'll be building a collection of 3D blu-ray Discs without even having to think about since one sku will be used for most 3D releases rather than a separate 2D release... so when you finally do go 3D (even if just as a added feature on your next piece of gear) you'll already have a nice library of films to enjoy.
post #88 of 129
A old alarmist article warning of the dangers of 3D

The Problem With 3-D
It hurts your eyes. Always has, always will.
By Daniel Engber
http://www.slate.com/id/2215265/

The it could make children permantely cross eyed was particularly alarmist.


Also have read some reports of manufactures stating that the upper limit for continuos watching 3D with their displays is 2.5-3Hrs without running the risk of eyestrain. But you can watch it longer if you like, just dont complain to them if you get a headache.
post #89 of 129
the entire issue is a nearly a non-stater for me.

1. It appears that 3D technology will be implemented in new displays, like it or not.
2. It appears that the tech will (if at all) affect display prices only marginally (let's wait and see in regards to other equip).
3. It appears that the tech will be "defeatable"...similarly to 120 interpolation. Use it if you care. If not, leave it off.
4. It appears that the tech will, initially at least, be more of a novelty...given the limited amount of hard media and broadcast options. Baby steps.
5. It appears, like every other tech before it, 3D will evolve and likely become more enjoyable and liveable. Welcome to technology.


In a rare case of pity for the industry, it's a classic damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario for display manus.

Had CES just brought about micro-improvements in black-levels and the promise of a usable OLED screen in 3 years, everyone here would be screaming bloody murder. Instead, we get the intro and early promise of new tech and the same damn thing jumps off.

What do you want people? My Kuro and many other models seem to be pushing the edge of 2 dimensional viewing to begin with. Sure, we can nit pik here and there, but good gravy, what more can you ask for out of a lot of displays these days?

Give the tech a chance. Its inclusion in new units is nearly transparent (seemingly) and you can jump in (or not) whenever you want.

Either way, the earth, and the human minds upon it, won't stop spinning.


James
post #90 of 129
I've been reading this post and I'd like to add my two cents.

Has anybody here considered that watching a 3D movie on an imax, is really the only way to experience this new technology.

For me, sometimes going to a movie with their acoustics, lighting and the really wide screen is really the best way go, that's what it was meant to be enjoyed.

We are never going to duplicate that experience at home no matter home much money we spend trying too.

Plus it's good to get out of the house sometimes.

Anyway, I'd rather spend $30.00 to get the 3D experience at an IMAX movie then $30,000.00 to try and make my home look feel and sound like one.

Just my two cents....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Tech Talk
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Tech Talk › 3D Television Opinion Thread