Philosophical Discussion / 3D Emotional Experience

Good question. We who pursue home theater already turn out all the lights and devote the time for the experience. Mostly we're not walking around the house with the projector on. Now, for 3D we'll have to put on glasses we wouldn't want the neighbors to see us in if the doorbell rings. It will take some commitment. I think that will help the reality fantasy come home - gearing up that much will help make it happen.

I wouldn't be so sure about it for a small screen, though.

How does light (that is what television images are made of) "invade your space?"

My thoughts on the transition of 3D from the theater to 3 D at home:

DISCLAIMER:

Been to a bunch of 3D presentations in the theater (big fan of IMAX 3D for years) but have only seen the Samsung 3DTV demo a few times.

Large difference watching a movie on a 30+ foot screen in a theater versus watching the same movie at home, no matter how big your display is. Even the biggest HT's only have a screen about 150".

With that said, we all make adjustments for this fact. It doesn't stop us from enjoying movies at home, just in a smaller size. And watching 3D at home, from what I saw, will be no different. For those that have enjoyed 3D in the theaters, now they will be able to enjoy it in the comfort of their own home. The same can be said for having a surround sound setup in ones home.

I believe 3D, like SS, can and will be used to heighten/expand the experience of watching a movie.

It's like D-BOX. Only it's visual as opposed to tactile.

There is 'marketing data' that suggest the average ['first world'] household buys a new tv on average about once every 4 years for reasons other than 'new technology' [e.g., replace broken set, or kid takes old set to college, etc.]


So how should we watch Avatar according to [Director James Cameron]? He wants us to shell out for the Blu-ray 3D version coming out in November 2010, and then, "If you're going to go 3D, go big. Get the biggest set you can, and then sit as close as you can stand. That's my advice. Get the coffee table out of the way and slide the couch over, right in front of the TV."


Happy consumers with 100" to 200" screen [and thus able to sit 'closer', which requires line doubling/quadrupling from current 1080 source material]...

You've hit one of my hot buttons which is the assumption that everyone thinks 3D is great. Frankly, I have seen a few "excellent" 3D movies (avatar, etc.) in a high quality setting and have not been excited about the technology. IMO, it still seems "gimmicky" and has not fundamentally changed (in terms of how I perceive it) from the earlier attempts at 3D. I think my main issue is that I want to sit back, relax, and watch a good movie; I don't want to have my "space invaded" or be part of a more visceral experience. The same can be said for 6-axis motion in the home. Full motion rides at an amusement park are fine, I just can't see myself enjoying it in a home setting.

IMO, 3D technology should not be called 'TV' or a 'movie'... it is a different experience (which may eventually progress to a holodeck-style immersive program).

If you want to discuss what 3D adds or detracts from a program in this thread then I will continue to post (not sure if you want a 3D / no 3D discussion in your thread).

[quote=mgkdragn;18507990][quote=SoundChex;18507879]There is 'marketing data' that suggest the average ['first world'] household buys a new tv on average about once every 4 years for reasons other than 'new technology' [e.g., replace broken set, or kid takes old set to college, etc.]


No, it means that it's likely that [at least] one TV in your household was purchased within the last 4 years, primarily for reasons other than 'new technology'. With many households supporting 2, 3, or 4 TVs, that might translate to an average TV lifespan of between 8 and 16 years. And, when a new set is purchased, it provides an opportunity to (e.g.) just replace the (failed) set in the kitchen, or to rearrange all the sets in the household, and upgrade the primary family entertainment TV.

For example, I've purchased 7 sets in the last 28 years, none of them specifically in order to acquire new entertainment capabilities . . . and discarded 4 sets (2 failed; one 'non remote, non cable ready, CRT' given away as "too hard to emplace and use"; and one portable NTSC set on-hand for 'post earthquake use' replaced with a portable ATSC set). So I have one five year old set, and two sets under 4 years old. Does that make me boringly average?

I don't think 3D is just one thing - any more than 2D is just one type of experience. I really look forward to what television and filmmakers will bring us in the form of 3D entertainment, but it will be as varied as 2D entertainment is today. It will be comedy and cartoon, drama and documentary. The way producers involve us will be subtle and blunt force, just as it's always been with visual media. That's the way it should be. 3D will become simply one more tool at the disposal of the producer. I hope 2D doesn't go away, nor black and white, nor any other technique producers have used to get across their messages in the past. 3D is not an either/or proposition.

The one thing I feel very strongly about is a big screen for the home. Given the choice of having a big screen or a 3D screen, I'm afraid I'd have to choose a big screen. Fortunately for me, I won't have to make that choice for very long. 3D front projectors will be here soon. Black and white, color, HDTV, big screen, 3D - there's room for any and all of them in the future. I can imagine people enjoying high definition, black and white, 3D still photography. Imagine Ansel Adams in high res 3D. Almost certainly not a mainstream hobby, but it could be thrilling for some. I will almost certainly experiment with it in the future.

I'm enjoying the heck out of 2D to 3D conversion, "does that emotional experience translate into the home environment...??", a definite yes. YMMV.

For me this is still a big question mark. Until there are some actual BluRay 3D material widely available, its really hard to make an apples to apples comparison. I would have to see a few movies at home that I originally saw in the theater to make a valid argument either way. My feeling is that the experience won't transfer over completely simply because the big-screen 3D theater experience is in a class of its own. I don't see that comparing to a 50" screen and having the same emotional impact. But I think the jury is still out.

Agree - 3D is an addition to HD, not a replacement for.


Size matters to who? To a bunch of AVS members? The average sized HDTV sold is 37". Couple that with the average viewing distance in the average living room being around 10 feet and it is evident that most people don't have an issue with the size of their TV image.

ANY movie, 2D, 3D whatever D is always best seen on a theater sized screen. And going to the theater is a shared experience - hundreds of people watching and listening to the same thing. But that doesn't mean that everyone gets the same feeling, stimulus, whaterver from the common experience. That is a subjective issue, best left answered by each individual.

I thought it was every 5 to 7 years.



Guess you missed the memo - there will be no Avatar 3D BD this year. Fox has said; "sometime in 2011."


The next step - 2160P is 4X the number of megapixels of 1080P (8MP versus 2MP).

So approximately how many households have a TV with a 100" or greater image? A number or a % will do.

As for most others here, the only two 3D TV screen sizes I have seen to date are the 55 inch Samsung LCD and 50 inch Plasma Panasonic. Truthfully, i much more enjoyed the 3D experience with the smaller Panasonic and not just because of the absence of cross talk since the Samsung model was well adjusted.

There is something to be said for the "looking out a window" view which is unique to 3D TV. That said, I am looking forward to comparing what it will look like looking out an even larger window with the 58 inch and 65 inch Panasonics coming later this summer. (I tend to agree with those who assert that only with projectors are you going to get "immersive 3D" viewing but that does not mean the 3D TV experience is not an exciting viewing technology in its own right.)

I know this is blasphemy but living in Metro Atlanta our experience is...
movies look better on a large screen viewed in our living room vs. watching the same movie at our local theaters, both Regal & AMC. We do go to the theaters to see first run blockbusters, and then pick up the BD's when released.

Part of the reason is screen brightness... viewing movies at both those chains,
we see a dull picture with graininess's. The 3D showings are even worse, which may be do to the "light loss" wearing the 3D glasses.

The IMAX is way across town... so we've missed seeing Avatar, but we have seen a couple of 3D movies at the local theater.

I'm really looking forward to 3D's broadcasting Sports, expecting a big jump in realism, philosophical debates don't enter into my expectations.

Not to mention... a large bag of popcorn and two medium size drinks... more expensive than the theater tickets.

Then, you get to see 10 to 15 minutes of commercials, plus coming attractions...
before the movie starts.

Somehow watching the trains pull into Auschwitz in 3D just doesn't seem like it will enhance the emotional experience your supposed to get watching Schindler's List. No matter what a film maker tries to do using 3D it will never add anything to the TV show or film except a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or generate new business.

I disagree. Watching a scene like you describe in 3D would increase the horror of the images one would feel emotionaly. You would be at the train tracks - your perspective - as opposed to a distance away.

That's a really cynical evaluation of the potential impact of 3D technology. Instead of the "3D" in your statement, I could substitute "color" or "high definition video" or "surround sound" or "zoom lenses" or "Steadicam shots" or "tracking shots" or virtually any other tool of film and television production. Those things were all new at one point. They've worked out pretty well.

Challenging an artist with a comment like "using 3D will never add anything to the TV show or film" guarantees the opposite. A little 2.8 billion dollar movie called "Avatar" makes the comment sound absurdly indefensible.

Hhmmmm... 3D adds another feature to viewing...

trying to bring us a step closer to "Being There".

3D is not a threat...

you can choose to ignore the new technology,

or embrace it to add another option for your home entertainment.

The market place will determine 3D's success... so far it's looking good.

I certainly don't fall into the 37" TV category. Even then, just because somebody might have a 37" TV does not mean they don't care about the size of their TV. They might have space issues, budget concerns or something else.

3D won't add something to all movies and in some instances will add an unwanted effect so a director might choose to avoid it altogether. The coloring of old films example was great, but some films were shot in black and white for budget purposes and can be colorized without destroying the intent of the director. Others were shot that way on purpose, either to show a contrast to later parts of a film, like The Wizard of Oz, or to convey a feeling, like Schindler's List. Even color films often have modified color for a specific feel - such as how so many timepiece movies are shot with a sepia tone, most notably westerns.

3D will add to a lot of films as long as director's don't go the gimmick route and find ways to throw **** at the camera. Even then, I don't think it will provide anywhere near as much immersion as a D-BOX system can.

I do really look forward to seeing the new ESPN 3D channel.

I wasn't talking about 2D to 3D conversion. That's a completely different philosophical debate. As to 3D not being new, I'd say that what is new is the "aligning of the planets" for the greatly increased probability that 3D will succeed at home. Digital technology makes it possible to create 3D in the home that should rival or surpass 3D in most commercial cinemas, and at a very reasonable cost. That's been true of 2D cinema for a quite some time now, and I see little reason to think it won't be true for 3D as well. And we should all be aware of how successful 3D has been in commercial theaters in the last few years.

As to the shared experience of being in a crowded movie theater, I understand the value. I've probably been in more commercial theaters in my lifetime than 5 or 10 average movie goers combined. As someone who's experienced communal movie going in dozens of different theaters for thousands of films, and who's also experienced big screen home theater for the last 10 years, I've come to the conclusion that (for me) the commercial theater experience is inferior in several important ways to the home theater experience. The big screen is the key element here, and it's the reason I tell people they should get a projector if at all possible. Once a big screen home theater is in place, there's very little appeal (for me) in going to a commercial theater. That's why I anxiously await news of the first 3D projection systems.

I understand that most people are not going to have the space or the desire for projection 3D TV. Still, I feel that even a smaller 3D TV, say 50"-65", can provide a good experience in the home. It just won't be as immersive as a large screen. I've seen people react to 3D on such screens, and it's impressive. Show them 3D, and they usually like it. Mine is a small sample size, but I think it probably holds true for most people who experience it.