3D Television Opinion Thread - Page 4

I undersand what you're saying, and with 70mm and ultra-high resolution, IMAX still has some advantages even over 1080p (though I've seen some of their 70mm shows that were pretty soft and lacking in high-frequency detail so that 1920 x 1080 might have looked sharper).

In any case, we can't replicate a 50-foot screen at home. But we *can* replicate the "wide angle" viewing experience so the same field-of-vision that you get in the theater can be experienced at home. How? Go front-projection. Sitting 1 screen with away from a 100" 1080p image is a very immersive, and "theatrical" experience. Sitting 1.5 screen-widths (the 30-degree viewing angle THX recommends) is actually a wider image than most folks see at the theater.

Never, ever make the miskate that home-theater has to be built around a "TV"... that's a far too common misperception and a *real* home-theater provides a viewing angle that replicates a theatrical venue; right now that typically means front-projection but it won't be long before we have direct-view 100" screens.



That's always been the quandry with home-theater. Most home-theater hobbiests take it as a given that they are trying to recreate a theatrcial experience in their home, obviously within their budget limitations. The beauty is that front-projection is actually as affordable as buying a direct-view flat panel TV. There are many great 1080p options for throwing a very satisfying 100" image that cost less than $3500. The only catch is that you need a darkened room... but you watch movies in a darkened room in a theater as well, so for replicating cinema, a darkened room is actually ideal regardless of what display type you use.

a darkened room is actually ideal regardless of what display type you use.

Some people gettin a headacha watching lcd/plasma in a darkened room.
And what about bias lighing and ideal lume,the cinemaquestinc.com stuff?

That's because their displays are calibrated for a lighted room. You need to save a separate calibration for darkened viewing.

Also, you need to sit close enough to any display so that your field of vision is properly filled... about a 30 degree viewing angle. That's what makes a movie a "movie" and not "TV". Most folks actually sit too far from their flat-screen monitors to produce a proper film-quality viewing angle. But if you sit the proper viewing distance (about 1.5 screen widths) and calibrate, even a flat-panel display can produce a theater-quality experience in a darkened room. It's made easier, naturally, with larger displays as you don't have to sit as close to get the same viewing angle.

If you sit farther back from your direct-view display and/or don't have a dark-room calibration, then back-lighting can help to off-set the headache factor.

Let me guess: your last name is "Valenti," right?

Those points have less and less validity as time goes on. My wife and I enjoyed watching Up! in a nearly deserted IMAX theater.

When we returned a few months later to see Avatar... well, yes, the screen was nice and big, and the 3-D effect was great, but the experience was otherwise kind of a bust. I had a 300-pound Biggest Loser rejectee spilling popcorn, elbows and torso into my seat from the left, while my wife tried to deal with a Ritalin-deprived hypergeek adolescent on her right who couldn't stop tapping his/her seats continuously all the way through the movie. And just to pander to said geek, the management had those gawdawful subwoofers cranked to the max so that every scene where something rubbed against something else, all you heard were booming thuds that drowned out the dialogue.

(And to think that we paid over $30 for the privilege...)

I sure hope you're right.

No thank you, give me my 3-D at home, please.

Not a problem, we'll see ya in 10-15 years, have a good one!

Yeah, ain't technology progress a bummer when it comes out the day after you finally upgraded I felt that way when HDMI came out Upgrade paths and their timing are voluntary

Don't worry, the red/green stuff is long gone.

Glassless 3D is a long way off for multiviewer large HT screens, at least. Your investment is safe if glassless is your next upgrade.

There is a standard for getting the 3D image from its source to the display - that's mostly what HDMI 1.4 does.

I was really quite impressed with the Infitec non-polarized, non-shutter, plain screen 3D implementation - the glasses are way cool to look at too. Bummer is, the additional cost of the color processor and filter mechanics on the PJ. The others are cheaper to implement with today's sets.

While you can certainly (understandably) feel frustrated by the new Blu-ray 3D spec requiring HDMI 1.4, this false mantra that there's some sort of "format war" or undefined 3D standard needs to stop. It's not true.

There is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE a rule about what type of display is used or what type of 3D display technolgy consumers can buy. Our HD standard doesn't require that all TVs be Plasma or that all projectors be DLP... that's a manufacturing design question. In the same way the industry doesn't require that displays choose active or passive or mandate a refresh rate... that's up to you as a consumer to choose what you'd prefer. That's not the 3D standard... that's the TV set.

The "standard" is how it's shipped back/forth between devices so that the signals work over HDMI 1.4 on all 1.4 gear. There are also some "old fashioned" ways of packing 3D onto HDMI 1.3 that were written into the new 3D spec to allow Satellite and cable companies to send (1/2 resolution) 3D over existing equipment and hardware.

Those standards are already written. Now it's just a matter of getting the 3D displays to make the most of them.

At some point the bulb in your (fantastic) Sony projector will need replacing... and certainly by your 2nd, 3rd, or 4th bulb you'll be getting the upgrade bug as some new LED lit true-black projector will be for sale for probably less than what you paid for your Sony. That might be the right time to think about getting into 3D. For now, enjoy your Sony. It's no less a great projector just because there's now the ADDITIONAL option for consumers to enjoy 3D blu-ray and TV, for those who want it.

Film is really a 3D art form, temporarily limited by an accident of technological development to a monoscopic 2D medium. Though I care not at all about 3D football games, I have high hopes for 3D films (not high expectations --- that's something completely different). I'm especially interested in the automatic 2D to 3D conversion advertised by Panasonic and Samsung. I want this to work. I don't expect that old 2D program material can be made to look like a real scene in 3D, or anything remotely resembling this, but I don't see why in principle, with a whole extra dimension to play with, we can't find a way to improve the display of films produced previous to the coming 3D era.

For those that havn't seen the 3d tv's. The 3d isn't done where it pops out at you but it will more be like you are looking through a window and you will get depth within the TV.

What I saw at the sony store I liked and can't wait for the panasonic 3d tv's. Games and movies will be good.

I like what I saw also and was very impressed.

Personally, I'm kind of glad this is coming as it will save me a tremendous amount of money.

Don't much care for 3D in general - it's the cinematic equivalent of a pop-up book. I find true IMAX to be much more immersive than 3D and wish that was the direction Hollywood was heading in, but as that raises production costs considerably, it will never happen.

And I have even less interest in 3D at home. Existing HD is already more than adequate to replicate the theatrical experience with good equipment - I don't think you even need anything beyond 720p on anything less than a 20 foot screen.

I do kind of wish the electronics industry would spend more time perfecting what we already have rather than jumping on the next big bandwagon, but c'est la vie.

Bring on 3D, 4K - and whatever gimmick will make those sets obsolete - for all those that are interested in them. I'll be spending my money elsewhere.

It sounds like you were going to be saving money no matter what. 720p is good enough---really? You seem to think that adding 3D took away some "time perfecting what we already had." That seems to be the biggest misconception on this forum. Once the manufacterers had put in 120Hz refresh rates, 3D became very easy to do. Read how the new Panasonic plasma has better black levels, and a higher phospor decay rate. I guess they're not improving the plasma technology since they're focused on 3D. You seem to be like most naysayers on this forum that just want 3D to not happen---we'll it's going to happen because a lot of us are very enthusiastic about it. I think it actually looks better than 3D in the movie theater because each eye gets a discreet picture. Polarlized glasses used in the theater still have some crosstalk from one eye to the other and that lessens the experience. I can't wait to get 3D in my home. I just wish I had known how soon it was coming before I recently bought a Sony LCD for the bedroom. I'm guessing that many of the people that are against 3D are against it because they have so much money tied up in current equipment.

I am not against 3D in geenral. I just don't see what this system is adding to our enjoyment of TV and movies at home. I was not able to attend CES this year but have attended several private demonstrations of the new sets and even venured to the Sony Store in King of Prussia PA today to check out Sony's prototype. To say I was unimpressed would be an understatement. The 3D effect is very limited and is mostly evident on close-ups. Take the Soccer match footage for example. The shots of the action taken from above showed no 3D effect at all, which is similar to what I observed at the BCS game at last year's CES. The only 3D effect was from the shots with the camera positioned on the pitch and was the most pronounced on extreme closeups, such as the goalkeeper hugging the post on a free kick. To be honest, I have just as much depth on normal shots on my 141. As for the 3D effect, the object are very two dimensional looking like flat cardboard cuts outs layered on top of each other. To argue that this looks anything like real life is a joke. On the plus side, the glasses did fit nicely over my glasses and were well designed. However, in sampling the opinion of the people at the store, the people most impressed with it didn't have an HD set yet. The rest were non plussed with the idea of watching TV at home with glasses being a real turn off. Eye strain was also an issue for them past on their experience at theaters. I also have to say that the PQ on the prototype was really nothing to write home about. I will wait until someone puts out a set that can match the blacks and color of my 141 with 3D built in that doesn't require glasses. Until then, I will stick with what I have.

Do you really expect people to take you seriously when you suggest that 720p is good enough to capture the detail of 35mm film? Anyone watching their home-theater from a proper cinema viewing angle (1.75 screen widths or less) with average vision can easily see the difference between 720 and 1080.

If 720 really is good enough for you, I wouldn't doubt that other improvements in image technology wouldn't interest you.



3D sets will have better picture quality than last year's 2D sets because the latency issues with LCD need to be minimized, the refresh rate needs to be high, and in general the manufactures are pushing to advance all aspects of image quality. This silly notion that adding a left/right option to a television somehow negates all other forms of image quality progress is baffling. We expect those sorts of baseless FUD comments at other forums, but at AVS it would be nicer if folks could share their opinions about not caring for 3D without diminishing the validity of their point of view by attempting to substantiate their feelings with inaccurate points.



exactly.

It can't capture the detail of the negative, no, but then I've never been to a cinema that projects a film negative. Given that the average 35mm release print - which is projected onto fifty foot screens - is typically somewhere between 750-1000 lines of resolution (http://www.filmschooldirect.com/samp...HD_vs_35mm.htm), and that's not even factoring in gate weave and imperfect focus, yeah, I think 720p is more than adequate for home theatre. That said, I actually have a 1080p set, in addition to an older 1080i RP-CRT, because it was better in other ways aside from the added resolution.

Even state-of-the-art digital cinemas with 4K projection are showing 2K presentations 95% of the time, because virtually all post production work is done at 2K. And 2K is only slightly higher than 1080p - and that's on screens at least five times larger than most dedicated home theatres.


I hope you're right about that. Given the recent history of the electronics industry, though, I'm still skeptical. They seem to be more focused on "improvements" that can be easily marketed - like refresh rates, frame interpolation and increased resolution. I think we're more likely to see 1200Hz, 8K sets being touted before we see real performance improvements. I think one of the reasons the performance of CRTs is still held in high regard is because it had decades to improve incrementally, something I can't see ever happening again. But hey, if a 3D set offers better overall performance than any of its 2D counterparts down the road, then I'll buy a 3D set.


Great. Good for you. I don't begrudge anyone their interest in it and I'm not arguing against its very existence. But as this is the "3D Television Opinion Thread", I was simply offering my opinion.


So it's all sour grapes then? Is it really so hard for you to believe that some people genuinely may not have any interest in this technology?

That paragraph alone shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

Not according to SMPTE:

The smallest resolve power of neg film is about 6 microns. As a result, the limiting resolution on a 35mm negative frame is around 3700×2700 pixels. This means a maximum of 2000 lines of vertical resolution for an image with a 1.85 aspect ratio and even less for a 2.35:1 aspect ratio (1570 lines).

The resolution on a 35mm release print is much lower due to MTF generation loss in the film process. A recent paper from SMPTE journal reported that the real resolution that audience can discern in a high-quality 35mm cinema is about 1600 horizontal pixels, which translates to about 850 lines for 1:85 and less than 700 lines for 2.35. Most 35mm cinemas fair even worse than those numbers.

I truly believe that almost all of the negative responses on this forum are from people that feel that they have a huge investment tied up in what was state of the art technology, and now the state of the art is moving forward. And to be honest it will require all new equipment. I know I'll be buying a new 65" plasma or 72" LCD, a 3D Blu-ray player, and extra shuttered glasses. I will gladly spend the money, because I was in the market for a new TV anyway. I almost bought a 65" plasma this past year, and now I'm glad I didn't. If I had, I would be regretting it now, but I don't think I would be on the forum trying to convince others that 3D is a waste of time. The obvious answer is if you don't like 3D, then don't watch it. Of course this an opinion thread and anyone can express their opinion. I'm glad that at least you looked at a demo before commenting, because a lot of negativity is coming from people that haven't seen a demo yet. I spent 3 days at CES looking at a lot of demos, and some 3D is better than others. Some shots look fantastic, while some shots looked 2D. You're right in that objects far away(players from high up) look very 2D, because the further away from you things are even in real life, the more 2D they look. Directors and DPs are going to have more to consider when shooting 3D, and I think that's where the improvement will be made over the next several years. Anyway for the most part, I really liked what I saw and I'm looking forward to having it in my home.

I'm not convinced that this argues for a case of a 1280 x 720 digital capture of that 35mm analog film source.

film grain is random, and can be placed anywhere along the x/y axis. This is strikingly different than a 1280 x 720 sampled image which only captures at this static points on the frame. In a similar way that audio sampling requires twice the rate of the highest frequency you want to capture, in order to record the subtle details of an analog film print, you need a digital capture that exceeds the resolution of that analog film print. Otherwise you're compounding the limits... like adding noise when dubbing from a cassette tape to another cassette tape.

The irony is that film restorationists are seeing visible gains in quality when they increase from 2K to 4K scans of 35mm frames... in some cases, even higher scans of 35mm frames preserve more visible detail.

Yes, the duplication factor of film prints and less-than-optimal projection can mean that some images have a real-world resolution factor that might equate to a 1280 x 720 resolution image. But taking that same analog image and scanning and delivering at 1280 x 720 would reduce detail even further.

I liken this to arguments that 16-bit CDs are "good enough" because the noise floor of a 16-bit recording is already on-par with the noise floor of many analog master tapes. However, a 16-bit quantization of those same analog masters sounds worse than the masters themselves... because the CD isn't able to transparently capture the master... noise and all.

Just like a 24-bit 96 kHz capture of a 1960's analog reel-reel sounds better than a 16-bit CD, so a 1920 x 1080 digital capture of a 35mm film looks more like the 35mm source than a 1280 x 720 reduction.

So you saw a few different presentations? What were your impressions of some of them, in particular Sony and panasonic?

Panasonic had a good presentation where they showed 3D on a large plasma. Again, some of the 3D was better than others. I enjoyed seeing moments from the Olympics closing ceremonies that were captured in 3D. They also showed some football clips that looked good. The new plasmas have a faster phosphor decay rate, so I didn't see any trailing with the moving video. They also had a live feed from DirecTV showing 3D trailers that looked good. I thought it might be an exclusive agreement with DirecTV, but then I went to the Sony booth.
Sony was also showing the same DirecTV demo. Sony also had a lot more small demos set up. There was a demo of a 3D video game that looked great. They also had 3D OLED TVs showing underwater polar bears and other zoo animals, and a PS3 game of MLB baseball in 3D. The OLED looked good, but the sizes were really small. Other Sony demos were showing soccer, USC/Ohio State college football from this season, and Wheel of Fortune. I enjoyed the demos, but I really liked seeing Wheel of Fortune in 3D even though I hardly ever watch the show. To be honest, the Samsung, Sony, and Panasonic demos all looked similar. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Samsung glasses worked with Sony TVs. I'm pretty sure that there will be 3rd party manufacterers of the glasses. There were girls in bikinis handing out cards showing different color shuttered glasses.
The Samsung demo was also good. I saw Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs playing on a 3D Blu-ray player. It was really good looking 3D. I asked the guy manning the booth if the feed was really coming from the player, or if it was coming off of a server like all of the other feeds were. He then gave me the Blu-ray player remote and I was able to pause and fast forward the 3D Blu-ray like I would any Blu-ray player. That convinced me that the technology is ready to go now. I won't hesitate to buy a 3D TV and 3D Blu-ray player this year.
My biggest observation is that LCDs are brighter than plasmas, and the shuttered glasses do knock the brightness down somewhat. However, I still might consider getting the 65" Panasonic because plasmas look good from any angle.

Dave you should be a lawyer. Talk about being baffled with the 3D non-truths here at AVS. It's something to be ashamed about. Then you have new posters repeating the mistake of others.

Curious, what non-truths do you speak of?

This kind of thinking has been seen in anecdotal discussions of this topic in the past, but is likely only valid for some samples of viewers. A more general guide should be aligned with ITU-R BT.710-4 'Subjective Assessment Methods For Image Quality In High-Definition Television.' That document still specifies D65 bias lighting, at 10% of peak white, monitor brightness set for "dim surround" conditions (100 cd/m2), at a 30 degree viewing angle.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
G. Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants Affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

We don't have ambient lighting in a movie theater. So why should we have ambient light in our home theater?

So with HD in our homes, it really depends on what you're trying to do.

Do you want a "home theater"? If so, watch movies wide-angle on a large screen in a darkened room and calibrate accordingly. I would assume that's what you mean when you suggest "some sample of viewers".

Do you want to watch your HD display in a semi-lighted environment so others can casually view while they perhaps read or carry on other activities while one or more viewers watch the primary feature? Then calibrate for ambient light. That certainly describes the real-world environment for most HDTVs out there. But hanging an HDTV on your living room wall is not "home theater" per-se. It's not a bad thing either, but it's not replicating the art of cinema and we need to keep the two enviornments very distinct when we talk about our goals for high-performance image reproduction as home-theater enthusiasts.

LOL! Your tv is not 'obsolete' and it is not about to become obsolete.

Also,

Just because you chose to buy a tv now, does not mean brand new technologies coming out in the next few years are bad or a bad idea. If anyone else feels this way, fine, more 'nicer' tvs for me in the coming years, less for you.

As far as I'm concerned, they can't develop television technology fast enough for me to become 'disinterested' or 'irked'. I'll always be looking for what's the latest and greatest. It's just my nature.

Pricing will be prohibitive when the prices are finally announced.


3D programing is still in its infancy with ESPN and dIRECT tv making an announcement for Dedicated 3D channel programming.

If 3D is excepted by the masses ,refinement is still needed as with any new technology.

Bottom Line : Waiting a while might be a good idea unless you want 'bragging rights' and have plenty of cash.

Have you priced many 72" 2D LCD TVs with 480Hz scanning and LED backlighting with local dimming?

How much do you think a 2D set with all of that would cost... at 72 inches. 4K? 5K?

VIZIOs 3D 72" TV that sports those features will retail for $3500.

That's a pretty low price for even a 2D LCD display at that level of featureset, and of course VIZIOs smaller 3D sets are cheaper still.

Sure, some manufacturers will price their 3D sets at a premium over 2D models for a while, but there's bound to be an affordable option for anyone who really wants to get into 3D. Of course, as you say, the longer one waits the better and cheaper things are no doubt going to be.

We don't get sufficient luminance levels (and contrast ratios) in a movie theater to warrant bias lighting.

Unlike, say, a video editing bay (where the SMPTE bias lighting standards were developed), or a "home theater" (even with a plasma).

Brightness is a component, but what's being missed is that the real purpose of bias-lighting is to fill the viewer's field of vision with an average light output in balance with the light output of the (small) TV screen on their wall to avoid eyestrain.

However, if your image *is* the wall, then your field of vision is already filled with average light levels. That's what you see in the theater... a large image that basically fills your field of vision. That's what you should also be seeing in your home-theater if you're replicating a cinema viewing angle.

Once you have an image that's filling your field of vision, there's no need for ambient bias-lighting because there's no empty field of vision that needs to be filled to make viewing comfortable. Regarding brightness of your image: when filling the field of vision of a 30 degree viewing angle, the ideal brightness of the image becomes an issue of viewing comfort: some folks like a bright an punch picture, others will prefer a more cinematic image with less brightness... but in either case image calibration and your eyes' natural adjustment to the average light levels will allow a proper viewing experience.