Ok...Holidays are now over, so, how about 3D now? - Page 7

FAD until the glasses are no longer required which will be quite some time.

I voted fad. I'm just not interested, or impressed with the picture quality right now.

And although I've seen quite a few movies in 3D now (at the cinema), there's not one film that I think has been improved in any way by it being shown in 3D...

I see the benefits of 3D but for me personally its too early. I recently got a new projector but the only 3D ones in my price range (sub 3k) were 720p - no thanks. That is like 1 step forward and 1 step back to me. Instead I went with a JVC HD250 which represents the kind of deal you can get once a technology is matured. Just stunning image for the money. Maybe with my next projector upgrade (in 2-3 years) I will do it but some things need to change first for me.

I am OK with glasses but I don't like the idea of shutter glasses. They are too expensive for glasses plus they just sound way too fragile to me - how long can these survive every day use? I would prefer passive glasses that are standardized so they can make them in a variety of sizes so I can get one that is totally comfortable and doesn't feel like I am wearing glasses.

3D definitely isn't dead. Peter Jackson is filming The Hobbit in 3D and he wants to do 3D conversions of Lord of the Rings (GOOD expensive ones, not crap ones like Clash of the Titans). For a lot of people those movies will move them to 3D a lot faster than Avatar would.

I voted Fad. Especially when most 3D movies go out of there way to make something 3D like the op said, a finger pointing in your face, or something thrown at the screen. Plus, I find 3D movies to be much darker and lacking in detail. Give me 1080P HD and nothing else. I also find 3D movies to be blurry at times and lacking in detail. I could have purchased a 3D TV if I wanted, but, did not think it was worth it. Plus, most of the movies that are out are not even shot with 3D cameras, the 3D is added later after the movie is completed, making it even worse.

They have standardized passive glasses for home use. They are all Circular polarized, the same polarization method that RealD uses in it's theaters. Only IMAX continues to use Linear polaization.

A number of glasses manufacturers are making high end CP 3D glasses, like Oakley, Calvin Klien, Gunnar and others. Such inovations as wrap around style lenses and light weight frames are available - at a cost of course.

Here to stay - but once again there are 'format' wars (glasses only working with one set, passive vs active, etc) and once those are settled (at least universal glasses) things will progress. LIke any new technology the more it gets adopted the more content we'll see and the 'better' the content will become.

3D is a very subjective issue. My experience with reading thousands of posts on the subject has lead me to believe there are three classifications of consumers when it comes to 3D:

1. Love it
2. Indifferent to it
3. Hate it

Of course the old saying; "to each is own" fits perfectly here.

3D has issues that the other TV formats never had/has. Not all people can see 3D. Approx. 12% can't. Some can't see it at all while others can see it, but it affects them physically. They get disoriented, headaches and other physical aliments. Just like some people get sea sick.

The current rebirth of 3D started back in 2005 with a single movie; CHICKEN LITTLE. In 2009, the total box office attributed to 3D was $1B. In 2010 it was almost $2B. That is more than 20% of the total BO generated by about 7% of the total films released. Since 2005, they have released more 3D films each year then the previous year. So if 3D is a fad as many have voted here, what is their justification for feeling that way? 3D has been with us for almost 60 years. Isn't a fad something that is short lived?

Spend a day watching the new 3net network. You'll be sold.

http://corporate.discovery.com/disco...-of-sony-disc/

Came on DirecTV last week and it blew my socks off. Fantastic shows and superb PQ.

Is having PDP, LCD and MMD considered a format war when it comes to HDTV displays? Wouldn't you agree that each has it's strengths and weaknesses?

The same holds true for the different styles of 3DTVs. Like all things in life, there is a give and take. To get something, like cheap glasses and brighter images, you have to give something up; less resolution per eye.

We have different 3D formats for content; Frame Packed for 3D BD (movies and games) and Frame Compatible (Side-by-Side and Top/Bottom) for "broadcast" 3D. No different then HDTV with 720P, 1080I and 1080P

It will be interesting to see the long term effects of 3D on children and their eye sight. Let's wait and see how many irresponsible parents allow their kids to watch 3D all night long at home. Only time will tell how it effects their vision. I wouldn't be surprised if the amount of glass wearing kids starts to increase in the coming years.

I still don't quite understand what people are so afraid of here. We walk around seeing in 3d all day. If anything, sitting in front of a flat 2d screen should be more harmful to eye development, as it's completely unnatural.

For every article you could post that says 3D watching is harmful to their eyesight, I can post an article that says it isn't.

Children are not really different then adults when it comes to 3D. There will be a % that will have problems (as I mentioned above) because of physical issues.

I think the cutoff for children, as far as age is concerned is something like 6 years old. Younger than that, they shouldn't be exposed to it. And that falls on the shoulders of parents.

I really don't see this as a format war. The 3D content can be watched on any type of 3D display, so it's just up to user preference to choose the display method that they prefer (active/passive). Even if the technology you choose doesn't become the standard, you'll still be able to view any new 3D content on whichever display you choose, so I don't see the problem here? It's not like choosing HDDVD over BluRay, and ending up with a device that's obsolete.

And why is everyone so adamant that universal glasses are so important? You only have one display (assumably), so why would you need glasses that are compatible with every 3D display on the market?

Watching 3D content uses different eye muscles then just watching regular TV or staring out your window. And that is where the problems can arise; eye muscle imbalances.

That sounds like nonsense to me. Source?

http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA40078...-You-Sick.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...6080XO20100109

Need more?

Total agreement.

"3D" is this decade's buzzword, like the word "Turbo" back in the 80's and 90's.

Is Surround Sound a money grab by Hollywood and CEMs?

That link says that people with existing eye muscle imbalances will find it difficult to watch 3d. That makes sense.

Edit: Same with the second one you added.

Nowhere does it say or even imply watching 3d will cause eye muscle issues.

I never said it would. I said if you have an eye muscle imbalance, you will have issues watching 3D. With said eye muscle imbalance, you will not have any issues watching TV or just looking around.

Many people only find out they have an eye muscle imbalance when they first watch 3D because that is when it first comes to their attention.

I took what you said in the context of the other poster I quoted that said it would be detrimental to childrens eye development.

I highly doubt that.

I have viewed some demos at various retailers. I do not care for it at all. Not here to bash, just saying it is not for me. Looks a little cartoonish. Gave me a slight headache and a little virtigo.

Glad I clarified that for you.


As do I. What it will do is to alert parents that their child may have "lazy eye" (most common form of eye muscle imbalance) if the child complains of getting a headache or nausea while watching 3D content.

Don't take my low opinion as a blanket statement about the consumer electronics industry in general -- it focuses specifically on certain business practices to misinform the consumer through intentional misleading claims which the industry only knows too well does little to improve the level in picture quality (which is different from advertisements saying their products are better than others due to certain features that could only be found on their sets).

Although legal, I deem this practice as totally unethical. There is only so far a contrast ratio, black level, refresh rate, LED backlighting etc. can go up to before they become useless specifications found only on laboratory equipment. In many trade articles, corporate executives admitted they were counting on consumers treating television sets like a commodity and upgrading every two or three years. But what they provided were newer sets to entice the consumer into "upgrading" but not products that were signficiantly better than what they already had (for example, those controlled research studies showed that consumers saw no differences when it came to refresh rates and improved picture quality between properly calibrated sets with and without these higher rates and ratios; also notice that those video demonstrations comparing 60Hz to 120hz with an out of proportion basketball all come with the disclaimer "exagerrated for demonstration purposes".

And agree, the notion that any industry can force a consumer into buying a product is totally absurd, however, the notion that a product or certain feature can also be purposly withheld by any industry in collusion with itself to generate repeated sales is not. 3D was not introduced during the latter stages when the sales of HD sets was at it's highest (though the technology was already there) thus consumers were not given a choice of what type of set to buy (2D or even just a 3D-capable model with 240hz already incorporated) when making their first purchases. Instead, 3D hits the market after that period in hopes consumers would then make a repeat purchase.

My wife has one slightly lazy eye, she watches 3d stuff with me all the time and she doesn't seem to have any issues, so there's still done variability.

I get the occasional eyestrain from games but it seems to mostly arise from constant perspective shifts. One recent game in particular (killzone 3) is really bad about this, constantly throwing things into your face. I suspect I'd have the same issues if someone were constantly literally waving things in front of my face in real space though.

That is not correct. All the 3D movies from the 1950's were shot with dual camera rigs and used dual projectors with polarized glasses for presentation. Anaglyh 3D (red and cyan) was found in comic books, not movies.

When the rebirth of 3D came in the 80's it was still polarized 3D but they made it cheap. They used a single camera with a beam splitter to record the L & R images on a single 35mm frame and used a single projector instead of dual projectors.

There is a middle ground to the argument.

Professor Colin Clifford, who obtained his postgraduate and doctoral degrees in the United Kingdom and now works at the ARC (Australian Research Council) Centre of Excellence in Vision Science, is a globally respected authority on visual perception and how the neural processing in our brains affects our visual awareness. He asserts that watching 3D TV is no more harmful than watching traditional flat-panel 2D TV, as long as viewers do not sit too close to the screen nor watch for too long.

Professor Clifford, however, did also warn children against watching too much 3D TV, saying that excessive exposure of children's developing visual system (eyes and brain) to artificial 3D content may impair their sense of depth in the real-world environment.

Regardless if you love it, hate it or just don't care, one thing is for sure .. post a thread on AVS and you'll definitely get some response ..

Who cares about eyesight? What about childhood development? There's tons of information coming out about how harmful screen time is for early childhood development. How can there be any studies or impact results from 3D yet?

Have to disagree. What the Asian CEMs do is "take advantage" of the uninformed consumer. They started this practice decades ago with stated resolution of RPTVs. Consumers see an advertised measurement (like contrast ratio) and will think a bigger number is better.


The television industry is based on first a giant leap, then very small steps to the next giant leap. The first was television itself - B & W. Screens got bigger and more rectangular (the first TV sets had round displays). Then the giant leap to Color TV in 1953. Then a whole bunch of small improvements until 1997 when HDTV came about. Now we see small improvements each year. You won't see any big improvements because the industry isn't going to change the basic foundation/specifications of HDTV for consumers. It is still based on 4:2:0 with 8/24 bit color. There is only so far you can go working within the confines of those restrictions.

3DTV is IMO a new TV format but can be classified as an offshoot of HDTV.


When a new product/feature is introduced is all about demand and more important, the cost to implement it. The industry really tries to avoid stillborn technologies. 3DTV was introduced in 2010 because 2009 proved that consumers wanted 3D to the tune of $1B at the BO. It doesn't mean ALL consumers, just consumers in general.

Despite what many think, industry wide changes happen very slowly. Years. There are hundreds of companies involved in 3DTV. Standards have to be established, equipment has to be designed to deliver it and a committment industry wide is needed. Or else it becomes the crusade of a single company or two (like Betamax or HD DVD) and never is fully adopted by consumers.

I wonder how many people know that it took 7 years from the time that HDTV was considered an industry target (1990) until the first displays and broadcasts came about (1997)