3D HDTV is the most pointless mainstream technology ever. - Page 9

Indeed, I have. But, I don't know any cell phone manual that warns of things such as this;

* Altered vision
* Lightheadedness
* Dizziness
* Involuntary movements such as eye or muscle twitching
* Confusion
* Nausea
* Convulsions
* Cramps
* Disorientation

Doesn't exactly make one enthusiastic about the tech.

ALL of those are based on people having imperfect binocular vision. If there is nothing wrong with your vision meaning you are Stereo Acute - you will experience none of those symptoms.

Most people aren't even aware of their imperfect binocular vision. It takes wearing S3D glasses (active or passive) to find it out. Their imperfections don't show themselves otherwise.

Don't you just hate people like that.

Art

Nah . . . . but I do feel some sympathy for them. Or is it empathy? Which one shows you care less?

Nonsense. One can test binocular vision simply by focusing on two objects lined up in the visual field at different distances alternatively. There are varying degrees of binocular effectiveness among individuals. Many people find disruptions to the visual field, as effected by 3d presentations, discomforting to very uncomfortable. The issue is not simply mechanical and vision related, but also affected by perceptual tendencies and ability to process visual information in different regions simultaneously. There are as many variations on the process as there are in any other attempt to describe individual differnces in perception and behaviour.

Perhaps the medical profession could use 3DTV as a diagnostic tool?

I have to say that it was kind of funny when people in the Magnolia I was in the other night were going up to the display and trying it, and almost every one of them walked away muttering "I don't see what's so great about it".

It was even funnier at the one I was at.. people broke into seizures, walked into walls, tripped over their own feet..

They already do, and have for over a decade.

Stereo visualization is used in automotive, medical, oil & gas, educational, military, control room, and many other fields and industries.

The OP is completely wrong and I can prove it easily. These are pretty close to actual conversations in my house.

HDTV conversation a few years ago:

Me: We should get HD TV. It is really cool
Wife: Doesn't look any different to me
Me: Yes it does, look again!
Wife: Whatever

3D TV conversation last week:

Me: We should get a new TV for the living room
Wife: Can we get it in 3D?

I don't think this is a joke. HD appealed to a certain type of person - maybe we can be called technophiles or avsforum junkies. 3D is something anyone can experience and is a fundamental change. Don't bet against this one. In fact, the wise money is on designer 3D glasses.

I even think the old style analglyph (red / green glasses) is fun and decently cool, the new stuff is a big step up from that. I'm actually excited to do my first major 3D screening in my own theater with the active glasses.

Along with binocular vision you need to also include susceptibility to motion sickness and flicker sensitivity. This is not just about having perfect vision.

My house:

Me: When our TV dies, 3D TVs will probably be very common.
Her: You're not spending money on that sh*t!

I think I married her sister

A few outtings to the pay theaters for a couple of 3D movie releases, a few chek out the demo's while we were picking up media and badda bing badda booom, I got her talked into it. I am just hope'n for a damn compatible projector to come out before she changes her damn mind!!!

Presumably those who suffer optically triggered adverse effects from 3D tv will restrict the time/mode of their subsequent 3D tv viewing, in the extreme, perhaps never watching 3D tv again, only 2D tv [just as those who suffer vertigo, motion sickness, etc., from watching 2D tv today must 'manage' their viewing habits.]

The questions are: What percentage of the population are adversely affected? How severe are the symptoms? How complete the recovery? Can affected persons avoid (non trivial) re-exposure?

3D is going to finally take off this time and will no longer be just a novelty. The reason: Playstation 3 and 3D video games.

I can see real potential with 3D video games.

In addition to a couple of visits to the Magic Eye Theater at EPCOT, I've seen 3D at IMAX theaters, and neither the Panasonic or the Samsung demos impressed me as much as these other presentations did. I don't get the illusion of fullness or of things "leaping off the screen" with either of them...just a series of razor-sharp but flat images floating one in front of the other. Is this what the new 3D-for-the-home technologies supposed to look like? I distinctly remember at the Magic Eye Theater being so convinced by the illusion of fullness that I reached out to grab an asteroid that appeared to float rotating right above my seat, as well as feeling as though I could actually look around the characters onscreen if I were to change my seating position. Maybe I'm expecting far too much in a home setting?

They are not using 3D much any more to have crap fly out of the screen into your face. That is 3D The Gimmick.

Now they are using 3D to act as a balcony, so you the viewer are immersed into the images being presented before you. That is 3D The Story Telling Feature.

No, of course not. I've seen this criticism leveled at movies converted from 2D. I don't see any reason that home 3D system should suffer from the cardboard-cutout effect any more than other 3D systems (but maybe there is a reason), and I suspect it's a problem with the source, rather than the display system.

Reading some of these comments of not being impressed and the images looking flat, I'm starting to suspect that the 3d demos in a lot places are using the auto conversion feature as opposed to native 3d content.

My feelings as well. I'm not a gamer but I just can't see how this won't be like the second coming for those who are.

Art

I have written in this thread about my wife's reaction (positive) to the demos at best buy. My thing is that these TV's are relatively small. 72" is what I would consider the smallest size for 3D. And like others here I am waiting for FP 3D technology to go into the the theater.
Chris_TC, the samsung demo I saw used the 2d-3d conversion of Night at the Museum. It was flat but IMO didn't take away from the movie. (I also saw the demo with MVA and the Panasonic demo). I am also waiting for Toshiba to come out with their TV's with the cell to see if maybe alot depends on the HP needed to do conversions.

That is just a patent misstatement. How can you be "immersed" in the image? Immerse means to be in something that surrounds you. You may see depth but you are hardly immersed. Only a holigraphic situation such as a "holodeck" would immerse you in the image.

Which "they" are you referring to? A number of "theys" are doing "3D The Gimmick". I've seen the 3D trailers for Clash of the Titans, Piranha 3D and Friday the 13th Part 2 in 3d. All of them are in "3D The Gimmick". I would bet that many of the other 3D films slated for release are also that way. Hollywood never learns - if something is exploitable, they will exploit it.

Of the following future 3D movies, which do you think will be in "3D The Gimmick"? I would bet a very substantial percentage will be.

Shrek Forever After
Toy Story 3
Despicable Me
Cats & Dogs: the Revenge of Kitty Galore
Step Up 3D
Friday the 13th Part 2 in 3d
Piranha 3-D
Legend of the Guardians
Alpha and Omega
Jackass 3D
Saw VII
MegaMind
Tangled
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1
Yogi Bear
Tron Legacy
A Monster in Paris
Beauty and the Beast
The Cabin in the Woods
Priest
Resident Evil: Afterlife
Drive Angry
Sucker Punch!
Rio
Kung Fu Panda: the Kaboom of Doom
The Green Lantern
Cars 2
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2
Smurfs 3D
Puss in Boots
Arthur Christmas
Happy Feet 2 in 3D
Bear and the Bow
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3D
The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn
Newt
Stretch Armstrong
Hotel Transylvania
The Croods
Madagascar 3
Untitled Spider-man Reboot
The Guardians

There was an interesting interview with Jeffery Katzenberg in Variety that says "3D is either A) The industry's biggest bigscreen innovation in decades and its biggest growth opportunity; B) In danger of fading within a year; or C) All of the above. According to Jeffrey Katzenberg, the answer is C." He says "We are asking the moviegoers to pay a 50 percent premium to come see these films. So I think (there will be a) backlash. It will be a whiplash. They will walk away from this so fast." In my opinion, 3DTV is in the same position.


Here is a link to the article: Katzenberg: Biz at 3D crossroads

Here are several very interesting blogs/articles from John Sciacca:

http://johnsciacca.webs.com/apps/blo...ready-hate-you

http://johnsciacca.webs.com/apps/blo...ple-and-drunks

Perhaps he meant it "figuratively"???

"you the viewer are immersed into the images"

Sorry either the images are in front of you or you are surrounded by the images which means they are all around you (i.e. immersed). Granted 3D can give the illusion of depth but even figuratively (and exactly what would "immersed" mean in a figurative sense?) I can't see how one could claim you "are immersed into the images"

Thanks for the link. What he is (rightly so, IMO)railing against is the FAKE 3D that abounds and Titans was "the lowest of the low quality" 3D. We desperately need to have a moniker that ridicules such 2D-3D conversion movie that "claims" to be in 3D. I agree with you and him that is gimmick 3D at its lowest. Cardboard 3D? Flat 3D? Cut-out 3D? There's got to be a catchy one

On the other hand, I think 3D at the theater and 3D on home TVs may follow different paths - thinking of sports in 3D (and then there's 3D dildonics )

Have you ever been immersed in a good book or a good play at the theater?