or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › Ok...Holidays are now over, so, how about 3D now?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ok...Holidays are now over, so, how about 3D now? - Page 5

post #121 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post
If there's any upcoming technology I'm really doubtful will catch on with consumers, it's 4k. Each increase in resolution meets with diminishing returns, and 1080p is probably the max most will even be able to notice unless we're using HUGE TVs.
Ironically 4k might have a chance because of 3D and the current limitations of passive tech.
post #122 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post
I think you're over thinking it a bit. The main thing needed for 3d other than the IR transmitter and some software is a fast panel. You can technically do 3d on any 120hz set, but it'll probably look like garbage unless its of a sufficiently high quality. This isnt cheap. Plasmas are naturally fast, but they still needed to work on the phosphor decay. In either case, a fast panel is going to improve 2d.

It's not a conspiracy to charge $1000 for the $1 IR transmitter. 3d doesn't make a TV more expensive, but a cheap TV can't do 3D....yet.
That was somebody else who spoke about the IR transmitter. Regarding a faster panel improving 2D on LCD monitors, that is also different than what is being required for 3D which was what I was getting at. From my own experience, I have a 60Hz LCD and am still looking for motion blur on sporting events - and so were those who volunteered to participate in those research studies I mentioned about. Also, there are always disclaimers on those video presentations showing the difference between 60 Hz and 120 hz that read "exagerrated for demonstration purposes".

A few professionals in the other forum brought out an interesting fact. They stated that most all LCDs in a company's line are actually built the same and instead of higher contrast ratios, black levels, etc. only being put into the more expensive units they are instead built into all sets and simply cut off from being used in the lesser expensive ones. Which implies one is not paying for anything more expensive to produce but rather the ability to access it (whether they even improve the picture quality is another issue). If this applies to what is required for 3D as well (i.e., refresh rate) I do not know but I wouldn't put it past the industry.
post #123 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppabk View Post

Ironically 4k might have a chance because of 3D and the current limitations of passive tech.

True, but as a content format I don't think it has a chance. I've got a great setup and I can't be bothered to used trueHD over DTS because I literally can't hear the difference. Im as much an early adopter as anyone, but I have absolutely zero interest in 4k.
post #124 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

If there's any upcoming technology I'm really doubtful will catch on with consumers, it's 4k. Each increase in resolution meets with diminishing returns, and 1080p is probably the max most will even be able to notice unless we're using HUGE TVs. There is precedent for this: SACD and DVD-Audio. Sure, they're better than CD, but the difference requires expensive, niche equipment, and I honestly doubt most audiophiles would even be able to notice the difference themselves.

It depends on the source material, sure not all 4k material will look great. Average joe's will notice Real 4k, 8k true master transfers. As for SACD's & DVD-audio all u need is a sacd dvd-audio player to hear a difference that people will notice. Bring on the 3D 4K
post #125 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post

That was somebody else who spoke about the IR transmitter. Regarding a faster panel improving 2D on LCD monitors, that is also different than what is being required for 3D which was what I was getting at. From my own experience, I have a 60Hz LCD and am still looking for motion blur on sporting events - and so were those who volunteered to participate in those research studies I mentioned about. Also, there are always disclaimers on those video presentations showing the difference between 60 Hz and 120 hz that read "exagerrated for demonstration purposes".

By fast panel Im not referring to the refresh rate but the response time. They're two different things that are related. A high frame rate will actually mask the effects of low response time. LCDs are good enough that you might have a tough time discerning noticeable blur by eye nowadays. But 3D requires some pixels to switch from full white to black 4 times as fast. And the result of failing to do this well is very noticeable crosstalk rather than somewhat noticeable motion blur.

Quote:


A few professionals in the other forum brought out an interesting fact. They stated that most all LCDs in a company's line are actually built the same and instead of higher contrast ratios, black levels, etc. only being put into the more expensive units they are instead built into all sets and simply cut off from being used in the lesser expensive ones. Which implies one is not paying for anything more expensive to produce but rather the ability to access it (whether they even improve the picture quality is another issue). If this applies to what is required for 3D as well (i.e., refresh rate) I do not know but I wouldn't put it past the industry.

Perhaps, but given the subpar quality of 3d even on the highest end LCDs, I'd say there's plenty of room for improvement.
post #126 of 1824
3D is still at the fad stage. When we are at the point where the glasses become unnecessary so everyone can see it, and at fairly wide angles, then I'd say it's serious business!
post #127 of 1824
I am really upset that there isn't a great solution for those who want projection screen solutions. Especially when the de facto right now for consumers is the hefty price tag of a 1080p 120hz projector and 150 a pop for glasses. I'm currently building my new theater and will have a dual projector set up with passive 3D and I can play Blu-ray content. But, it won't be from the disc since no one has announced the capability to dual output HDMI signals for left and right. I've ripped that content from the Blu-ray 3D disc and using that I can output the separate left and right images through Stereoscopic player to the two projectors through HDMI. But this is only possible because the HDCP has been removed by using AnyDVD HD. I then use a third HDMI connector to send the uncompressed audio to my receiver to process the audio. So, far things are working out but, that's because I really researched it and found a way around it. I just can't see it catching on in home TV's because it's too expensive for the average consumer to plop down 800 dollars for his friends to watch the Super Bowl in
3D. I will have a build link in June.
post #128 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppabk View Post

In fact I am arguing the opposite, that dismissing something because it failed once before in a different market with different technology is pointless. 'It was a fad in the 50's and the 80's and therefore it is a fad now' adds nothing to the conversation if the same reasons for eventual failure still apply now as then state them.

If anyone were saying that, I'd agree with you.

The point is exactly what you eluded to at the end. This is driven by the movie theater experience, and there is no significant difference between the latest iteration and what we got the last time.

The only difference this time was that the consumer electronic industry was in a position to try and jump in right away and take advantage of the concurrent heavy theater industry promotion.

If it has failed to stick previously at the theater with lightweight glasses - where people are out doing something different than their normal routine anyway, what would possibly make someone come to the conclusion that putting on bulky goggles constantly during their normal bulk TV viewing at home would be much more likely accepted by the public?
post #129 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikewarrior View Post

I truly believe those who are against 3D are the ones who can't afford it, or didn't buy into it when they did have the money...

I disagree with this statement. I think, specially on this forum, that most A/V enthusiasts welcome new technology that is a definite improvement over a current technology. We all have purchased an A/V item that might have been costly, but was the top unit at the time, only to see a new unit outdo the one we have. We don't hate that newer unit, or technology it has. We may express a bit of "buyer's remorse", but deep down we're glad to see the improvement and hope that in the future we will be able to purchase the new unit with the new technology.

With 3DTV, do to a list of reasons that have appeared in this and other threads, very, very few consumers and even A/V enthusiasts, felt that the current version of 3D is just not worth those extra dollars at this time. Specially for the home.

Ghpr13
post #130 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

If anyone were saying that, I'd agree with you.

The point is exactly what you eluded to at the end. This is driven by the movie theater experience, and there is no significant difference between the latest iteration and what we got the last time.

The only difference this time was that the consumer electronic industry was in a position to try and jump in right away and take advantage of the concurrent heavy theater industry promotion.

If it has failed to stick previously at the theater with lightweight glasses - where people are out doing something different than their normal routine anyway, what would possibly make someone come to the conclusion that putting on bulky goggles constantly during their normal bulk TV viewing at home would be much more likely accepted by the public?

Because this time, it's bigger than just movies. It's movies, games, tv, sports. Even home movies and still pictures in the near future. Will people use it for ALL viewing with the glasses? I doubt it, but it'll find a place.
post #131 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

If anyone were saying that, I'd agree with you.

"Recycled fad from the 50's.

I suppose Sensurround will be brought back in the near future, huh?"

Was the original quote I replied to, which in my mind seems to imply that we can dismiss the modern implementation based on its failure in the 50's.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

If it has failed to stick previously at the theater with lightweight glasses - where people are out doing something different than their normal routine anyway, what would possibly make someone come to the conclusion that putting on bulky goggles constantly during their normal bulk TV viewing at home would be much more likely accepted by the public?

I don't believe that people will be watching the majority of their TV in 3D for another 10 or 15 years at least when glasses-less tech has advanced sufficiently. 3D is an option, and sometimes I like to watch a movie in 3D, and don't mind wearing the glasses to do so. Sometimes I don't feel like it. Sometimes I watch a movie with the lights dimmed, sometimes I don't bother and to hell with the black levels.
The majority of the stuff I watch is not originally in 1080p either, but I like my TV to have the ability to show true 1080p content when I have it. The majority of stuff I watch isn't 24fps, but again I like the fact that my TV can display that format correctly when I do watch it.
post #132 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Because this time, it's bigger than just movies. It's movies, games, tv, sports. Even home movies and still pictures in the near future. Will people use it for ALL viewing with the glasses? I doubt it, but it'll find a place.

I hope you're right, if it sticks we'll get steady improvements as mfg'ers try to keep people upgrading. If it doesn't, it's much more difficult to get something new on the market when acceptance is unknown.

I just don't see it happening with the marginal impact on movies, TV, or video games. BTW, sports are already in 3D, even without the glasses.
post #133 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppabk View Post

I don't believe that people will be watching the majority of their TV in 3D for another 10 or 15 years at least when glasses-less tech has advanced sufficiently.

If that's the case, then all hope is lost for 3DTV - at least for this go-around.
post #134 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

I hope you're right, if it sticks we'll get steady improvements as mfg'ers try to keep people upgrading. If it doesn't, it's much more difficult to get something new on the market when acceptance is unknown.

I just don't see it happening with the marginal impact on movies, TV, or video games. BTW, sports are already in 3D, even without the glasses.

What do you mean by marginal impact?
post #135 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

What do you mean by marginal impact?

The benefit vs. the inconvenience.

But I really do hope that it sticks long enough for the technology to overcome that.
post #136 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

The benefit vs. the inconvenience.

But I really do hope that it sticks long enough for the technology to overcome that.

The reason I'm so sure it's going to stick around is that I do a whole lot of gaming, and there's no question that 3d adds an incredible amount to the experience. It also doesn't really add to the cost of development, and the content is going to grow exponentially in the near future.

For movies it's a tougher sell, since there is more argument about whether or not it benefits the medium. For TV it seems an even tougher sell than that.

I can see how it may be of questionable benefit and value to those not really interested in gaming, but even if its just for that alone, its here to stay.
post #137 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

The reason I'm so sure it's going to stick around is that I do a whole lot of gaming, and there's no question that 3d adds an incredible amount to the experience. It also doesn't really add to the cost of development, and the content is going to grow exponentially in the near future.

For movies it's a tougher sell, since there is more argument about whether or not it benefits the medium. For TV it seems an even tougher sell than that.

I can see how it may be of questionable benefit and value to those not really interested in gaming, but even if its just for that alone, its here to stay.

For some reason, I get a headache playing 3D video games (no problem whatsoever with movies though) - but I agree, if there is a shining example for 3D, that would be it.
post #138 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Because this time, it's bigger than just movies. It's movies, games, tv, sports. Even home movies and still pictures in the near future. Will people use it for ALL viewing with the glasses? I doubt it, but it'll find a place.

Yes, I wouldn't mind having fun watching 3D television, even if was for only an occasional lark and not for serious programming. I think the question posed both in this and the previous forum lacked a fourth option as an answer to the poll which could have been something like: "want 3D but not enough to replace what I currently have". It would have addressed the question of 3D being less a fad as it was an inappropriate time to be introduced to the consumer market.

I am also willing to bet a nickel that the industry has the capability to design a plug and play device that provides the necessary refresh rate externally to make it compatible with today's flat screens but opted to make consumers pay much higher prices for 3D television sets instead. That quite easily could have been the next hot item in home theater (just like DVD and HD monitors were) but less consumers spending more can be more profitable than more consumers spending less and (as already stated by so many) manufacturers needed something new to entice consumers into buying another yet otherwise unnecessary television set (and if this isn't the case it still shows how low the industry has sunk to cause such doubt about it's integrity).

BTW - 3D plug and play units that worked with CRT and DLP had been available for quite a number of years but never gained popularity. There were special 3D DVDs (not those like "Polar Express", "Journey To The Center Of The Earth", etc.) that could be played on standard DVD units which included many of the older IMAX titles now being released on bluray 3D.
post #139 of 1824
3D is painful and annoying for me in the theater. I can't imagine the experience on a much smaller screen at home would be any better. Since Avatar I've found the 3D theatrical experience of subsequent films to be detrimental to my enjoyment of them, and I will seek out the flat version or pass on it.
post #140 of 1824
I think what's going to happen is that pretty much every tv is going to have 3D, it's going to become a checkbox. What will change will be the implementation. However as long as they can get a premium for it they will try to do so.
post #141 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by coachkecz View Post

Can we please just skip to 4K?

Wise thinking. But what then?
post #142 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post

Yes, I wouldn't mind having fun watching 3D television, even if was for only an occasional lark and not for serious programming. I think the question posed both in this and the previous forum lacked a fourth option as an answer to the poll which could have been something like: "want 3D but not enough to replace what I currently have". It would have addressed the question of 3D being less a fad as it was an inappropriate time to be introduced to the consumer market.

I am also willing to bet a nickel that the industry has the capability to design a plug and play device that provides the necessary refresh rate externally to make it compatible with today's flat screens but opted to make consumers pay much higher prices for 3D television sets instead. That quite easily could have been the next hot item in home theater (just like DVD and HD monitors were) but less consumers spending more can be more profitable than more consumers spending less and (as already stated by so many) manufacturers needed something new to entice consumers into buying another yet otherwise unnecessary television set (and if this isn't the case it still shows how low the industry has sunk to cause such doubt about it's integrity).

BTW - 3D plug and play units that worked with CRT and DLP had been available for quite a number of years but never gained popularity. There were special 3D DVDs (not those like "Polar Express", "Journey To The Center Of The Earth", etc.) that could be played on standard DVD units which included many of the older IMAX titles now being released on bluray 3D.

No way they could have done it with just a box for flat panels. CRT and DLP is slightly different as there are some workarounds that can sacrifice resolution for refresh rate in a sense, but no way for panels. I mean technically it could be done, but the result would be so poor due to flickering that it honestly isnt worth giving a second thought to.

I actually had some active shutter glasses for my pc games over a decade ago. It required a CRT that could refresh over 100hz. You could try it at 60hz, but it was AWFUL.
post #143 of 1824
I think people still don't understand that 3D is way more than a fad. It's a new feature, like it or not. That is what 3D is. Don't like it, don't get that model that has it.
This is simply just a feature that's built into the tv, just like any other feature. In alot of ways it's the same as wifi. Some 2010 models have a feature called wifi that lets you go online to certain sites. You still have to have a wifi adapter for the 2010 models. Now 3D comes along, it's a new feature in tvs like wifi but requires glasses to view 3D content. Similar to how wifi works as you have to use a adapter to get the apps on your tv. Now most of the 2011 models will have built in wifi. 3D will still require glasses but everything is supposed to be better. We'll see on that soon enough. 3D is a feature, it isn't going anywhere, if anything it will evolve into something better. Maybe glasses free 3D or something all new.
post #144 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by texasrattler View Post

I think people still don't understand that 3D is way more than a fad. It's a new feature, like it or not. That is what 3D is. Don't like it, don't get that model that has it.
This is simply just a feature that's built into the tv, just like any other feature. In alot of ways it's the same as wifi. Some 2010 models have a feature called wifi that lets you go online to certain sites. You still have to have a wifi adapter for the 2010 models. Now 3D comes along, it's a new feature in tvs like wifi but requires glasses to view 3D content. Similar to how wifi works as you have to use a adapter to get the apps on your tv. Now most of the 2011 models will have built in wifi. 3D will still require glasses but everything is supposed to be better. We'll see on that soon enough. 3D is a feature, it isn't going anywhere, if anything it will evolve into something better. Maybe glasses free 3D or something all new.

The way it's being implemented now I think it's right to think of it as a new "feature" more than as a major shift in video and broadcast display.

If you define a "fad" as something that experiences a surge of popularity and then will simply fade away, then I doubt this "feature" will qualify as a "fad" and simply fade from usage.

I have 2 3DTV's now for the record and am quite happy with them, plasma and LCD. Both TV's are fine 2D displays so nothing at all is lost by adding the 3D except a few dollars on the purchase price.

I find the experience a MAJOR boost to the presentation for both movies and games assuming it's well done. At the same time it's only consuming *maybe* 10% of my total TV usage. Most material is still in 2D and I would not want to bother with glasses for all material anyway, nor to tire my eyes.

To fade away at this point as a feature it would seem that the movie industry would have to stop making 3D movies, which I see no signs of that occuring, esp. when they can produce 2D and 3D together anyway. Sanctum by the way I thought was spectacular at times using 3D.

So with major movies coming out in 3D for the foreseeable future, blu-ray 3D (and even some 3D streaming) now translating that feature to home for consumers that have 3D features in their televisions, this looks like a supply chain that will survive at LEAST as a profitable niche for some time.

Add to movies High quality games like Black Ops, Motorstorm and Killzone, a Nintendo 3D handheld, along with even a small amount 3D broadcast offerings should be enough to keep the niche of consumers satisfied.
post #145 of 1824
You can disagree all you want with each others posts, and mine... However, I will still believe people who are so against 3D are those who didn't buy into a 3D display, or can't afford to do so now. If you don't like it, I can get you a tissue.

Now the #1 reason why 3D is here to stay is that fact that Children are our future and 3D is definitely influencing them now more so than ever. Just about every cartoon/CGI movie is coming in 3D now. With powerhouses like Disney aboard, and movies like Harry Potter/Transformers 3/Pirates Of the Caribbean 4 will cement 3D as here to say for good wither you like it or not.

Maybe you haters should read what James Cameron has to say about it - http://www.heyuguys.co.uk/2010/03/15...-of-3d-movies/

To deny reality would make oneself a fool to hate on something that they dislike even though millions upon millions of others want it, and the industry fully supporting it for good reasons. It also doesn't need 100%, or even 50% acceptance to succeed... Just try to remember that.
post #146 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikewarrior View Post

You can disagree all you want with each others posts, and mine... However, I will still believe people who are so against 3D are those who didn't buy into a 3D display, or can't afford to do so now. If you don't like it, I can get you a tissue.

Believe all you want in one hand and spit in the other and see which fills up first.

For all the other 3D acolytes, what about the next big thing?

It's "Awesome Sound!"TM

"Awesome Sound!"TM can only be heard if you buy a set of extremely expensive headphones that also feel quite uncomfortable on your ears, and can cause headaches. But don't forget that with the "Awesome Sound!"TM headphones, you can add the 6th dimension to your viewing experience. All your friends will come over, don their 3D glasses and "Awesome Sound!"TM headphones and receive a media EXPLOSION!!!

Keep an eye out for "Awesome Sound!"TM enabled receivers coming next Christmas, and look for "Awesome Sound!"TM in theaters this spring with the release of "Random Horror Movie", "Dreamworks Studio 5 in 4D with "Awesome Sound!"TM" and the always fan-favorite "Fox Studios Animated Animal Farts 7 in 4D with "Awesome Sound!"TM!!!!!!!



Puh-lease. Just give me great camerawork, good scripts, and a movie experience that doesn't include hardware affixed to my body.
post #147 of 1824
I really hope it goes away. At first I was like "WOW! 3D is the greatest thing ever!" That's when I saw it at Disneyland and Universal Studios a long time ago.

Then I saw Avatar in 3D and it was...neat. I guess. But something really bothered me.

Then I saw Tron in 3D. Found it downright annoying this time.

The problem is with live action movies, you cannot properly simulate 3D. Because in real life EVERYTHING is sharp, and your eyes choose what to focus in on. With live action movies in 3D, the CAMERA has chosen what is in focus, thus ruining the effect because no matter what your eye focuses in on, near or far, if the camera didn't have it in focus when filming, it just won't ever be in focus. That's why some people can't see it.

So now I'm pretty annoyed when the only option to see a movie is in 3D. I'd MUCH rather pay less money to see a normal movie which is, IMHO, a better visual experience. I don't have a problem with 3D as long as I always have the option to watch in 2D.

Sorry if I repeated an earlier rant, I don't have time to read 150 posts.
post #148 of 1824
...are like belly buttons. Everybody has one.

That aside, I can't ignore the BIG push. On the other hand 3d has been around for decades and never really caught on. Yet, on a third hand, (one I borrowed) it doesn't seem to be a big engineering feat to add the feature and is prolly very inexpensive to add as a basic feature to most displays.

This leads me to believe content and media will be driving factors. HDDVD and BD putted along at first, but not now.

Hense, for the forseeable future, I vision more and more displays "3D Ready" whether the feature is exercised by the end user or not. Cheap glasses are sure to follow once a critical mass has been achieved.

So, today's must have gimmick is tomorrow's standard feature.

As for me, I'm glad they keep moving forward. I'm really glad I'm not stuck with grand dad's TV.
post #149 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by twisted_oak View Post

I watched Avatar 3d in theater. While I could see the effects, my gf could not. Seems like there are quite a few people who are unaffected by 3d. I had her watch Coraline at home and once again she cant tell a difference.

I even explained what she should be seeing. I think maybe she can physically see the effects, but is unaware because she doesn't look at those sort of details. She is one of those who really argues the merits of HD as well. Yes, her eyesight has been checked (20/20). Hell, I have worse eyesight than her.

I would consider her the majority. People who can merrily watch non-hd content and live their lives without it.

The only way this format will be instituted is if it is forced, ala digital transition. It will be a niche if not. There is not a big enough difference for the common person to switch.

Dude your gf just wants you to spend money on her not this A/V 3D crap
post #150 of 1824
3D (theater or home) is nothing more than a money grab by the studios and everyone that stands to make money on it between the studios and the consumer. It wouldn't be possible for me to care less than I already do about 3D. None of my friends are buying into it and they say they don't plan to...... ever.

Mark
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Community News & Polls
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › Ok...Holidays are now over, so, how about 3D now?