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 2

post #31 of 1824
2/16/11 at 4:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hdtv47lg70 View Post

i will use this as my exact opinion as well. Although i saw avatar twice in 3d and the christmas carol.. It wasnt a must have thing for me like bluray and lossless audio.. It is neat to see at the big movies but i dont really have the desire to see it at home.. The glasses are more annoying than the small visual addition they add.

+1
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #32 of 1824
2/16/11 at 4:38pm
Still checking the water to see if trying to shove 3D down our throats has been successful? Looking at poll so far, doesn't look like it has been.

People will continue to see James Cameron movies in 3D every decade or two, but that's about it.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 1824
2/16/11 at 4:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hdtv47lg70 View Post

i will use this as my exact opinion as well. although i saw avatar twice in 3d and the christmas carol.. it wasnt a must have thing for me like bluray and lossless audio.. it is neat to see at the big movies but i dont really have the desire to see it at home.. the glasses are more annoying than the small visual addition they add.

++

I really enjoyed Avatar 3d in IMAX... but at home, on one of the best 3d sets available (VT25), the 2d version was more enjoyable. The compromise in brightness and contrast in 3d, through the equivalent of twittering sunglasses, was just too much.

Fortunately, most manufacturers are adding 3d tech to their best 2d sets, so that you don't have to choose between a questionable 3d experience and a great 2d experience. So while 3d remains at the level of impact of a toy, you can still deeply appreciate your television for its timeless 2d qualities.

Standards are important, but even more important is the experience quality. People shouldn't have to worry about what they're giving up to watch 3d (comfort, PQ, resolution, realism... dignity), they should be able to think in terms of simply adding another dimension to their already great theatrical experience. And that can't happen while there are such serious technological compromises as we have now.
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 1824
2/16/11 at 4:58pm
After having owned the 65" 3D Panasonic since Sept. 1st I can only draw from my own experience. When I got the set I received a free Avatar 3D. After about five months I can honestly I have still not seen the whole film; it simply doesn't hold my attention. As to the look of it I find it unnatural and after a while actually irritating. You need only take off the glasses (which are uncomfortable) during the screening to see exactly how much light you are not seeing. My guess would be about 40%. On the other hand the set produces better 2D than I have ever seen anywhere on any other set so I would certainly recommend its purchase. But for me....3D.....forget it!
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 1824
2/16/11 at 5:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOHNnDENVER View Post

This thread would be proof that the killer if there is one, is just going to be misinformed people mis-informing other people on it.

Many of the comments here show a total lack of knowledge and understanding.

How about refuting them....rather than following the "misinformed" with an offhand comment?
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 1824
2/16/11 at 5:17pm
I have been a fan of 3D since the 70's, and never understood why it did not become more popular. Now that theatre 3D is so good, I hope it stays.

I hope the 3rd gen 3D for home equipment in a few years will be good enough and priced reasonably enough for home use of 3D for the masses.

I am really surprised that some people think lossless audio is better than 3D, since many people don't have sound systems good enough that could really tell the difference. I have a very high end system, and the improvement although noticeable is not as impactful as 3D is over 2D.

Count me in as one who is saving my pennies for the third gen JVC 3D projectors in 2012/2013. The first movie I am going to play on it is TRON Legacy which I have a pre-order for the special edition. The wait will be difficult.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 1824
2/16/11 at 5:22pm
Apart from the need for glasses, the limiting reagent in the 3D equation is quality content - and Avatar/Pocahontas-in-Space doesn't count. Sorry, but 3D versions of classic films like 7 Samurai will never exist, and they never should. Further, the current Hollywood output is abysmally derivative. 3D is fine for spectacle, if that's all you want.

The "better processor" argument for 2D is a valid point in favor of the current crop of 3D sets, but why not implement the improved processing sooner? Another factor smelling of gimmick.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 1824
2/16/11 at 5:54pm
It will never reach a big audence until they can get rid of the glasses. Every single person I know that wants a 3D tv always complains about the glasses and that deters them to buy a new set. I agree with them.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 1824
2/16/11 at 6:27pm
I'm sure the usual suspects and acolytes will come back around and post like they did in the old thread.

I'm still here and I still don't understand how anyone in their right mind can think that good cinema comes out of forcing everyone to wear glasses.

Cool technology? Yes.

Fun effects? Yes.

Good idea? No.

Here to stay? Never.
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 1824
2/16/11 at 6:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stappa View Post

I wish I knew. I'm in the market for a new receiver and all the old HDMI 1.3 boxes are now easily purchased at a large discount. Can't decide if I should go after a 1.4 receiver or not.

You can pass 3d through a 1.3 receiver apparently. Tulli has managed to edit the EDID for some receivers so they pass through the extra information.
This only works with a HTPC (with HDMI 1.4 capable video card) and a 3d TV at the other end.
Its amazing what people in this forum have acheived modifying EDID information; correcting issues manufacturers seem to not want to fix or are unable too.
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 1824
2/16/11 at 6:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8DOGG View Post

It will never reach a big audence until they can get rid of the glasses. Every single person I know that wants a 3D tv always complains about the glasses and that deters them to buy a new set. I agree with them.


Exactly! I am still on the fence but I don't forsee forking out more $ for these options. How do you quantify the average user anyway? I just don't see the average user upgrading their TV/Blu-ray player when most people have just jumped into the HD market.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 1824
2/16/11 at 6:50pm
It would cost me over $1000 just to provide glasses for every seat in my theater, assuming I wanted to wear them in the first place.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 1824
2/16/11 at 7:09pm
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.

It can only add to the experience for me, and those I know... Especially the DEPTH value in gaming.

Such snobbery.

3D was added as a gimmick in the '50s, again in the '80s, again now. For as long as the studios treat 3D no more than a gimmick, it'll never flourish. It has nothing to do with whether one can afford it or otherwise.

Did you own VHD-3D back in the '80s? Other than the resolution count, the quality and the equipment remains the same: active shutter glasses that flicker like there's no tomorrow.

Movie quality? Heck, at least the movies from the 50's and 80's were all filmed in 3D whereas movie today, at least half of them, are 2D to 3D conversion. If anything, from the content standpoint, it's a stepback instead of an improvement.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 1824
2/16/11 at 7:10pm
Personally, I detest 3D content for the fear that movie makers will focus all their attention on that aspect and neglect the film more for 2D.

This is a truly big fear for me with video games. I loathe the idea of games going 3D. If they start worrying about making crap pop out of the screen and not focusing on making a good game instead, I'll cry.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 1824
2/16/11 at 7:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coachkecz View Post

Can we please just skip to 4K?

You won't notice 4k. If you think the difference between 720p and 1080p is small then 4k will just blow right over your head.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 1824
2/16/11 at 7:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by orgonebox View Post

Sorry, but 3D versions of classic films like 7 Samurai will never exist, and they never should.

Man are you going to be eating those words in the next 18 months
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 1824
2/16/11 at 7:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kamui View Post

Personally, I detest 3D content for the fear that movie makers will focus all their attention on that aspect and neglect the film more for 2D.

This is a truly big fear for me with video games. I loathe the idea of games going 3D. If they start worrying about making crap pop out of the screen and not focusing on making a good game instead, I'll cry.

Most games already are 3d ( well if they use a 3d lighting engine they are) . FPS for example have a pretty fixed viewpoint so its much more straight forward to turn a game into 3d than a film.

I personally believe that gaming will be the major push for stereo in the home. I'll be buying a large 3d plasma ( and retiring my much loved HD1) very shortly just to prepare for Crysis 2.

A lot of back catalogue games can be turned into true stereo with a minor tweak. Its been possible to put most 3d games into true stereo on a PC since about 1998 just by handling it in the graphics card. Halo is stereo , Call of Duty ???? massive interest and it will be the gamers who are less bothered by things like glasses.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 1824
2/16/11 at 7:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stappa View Post

I wish I knew. I'm in the market for a new receiver and all the old HDMI 1.3 boxes are now easily purchased at a large discount. Can't decide if I should go after a 1.4 receiver or not.

If 3D doesn't Wow you....I'd definitely go with a 1.3 HDMI Receiver and save some dough !

If you shop, you may find some good deals on nice Receivers during this transition.

That's why I got a new one. Got a $600 Yamaha for half price.

________________________

It's "Blu-ray"....There is no "e" in (Blue ray)
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 1824
2/16/11 at 7:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post

Most games already are 3d ( well if they use a 3d lighting engine they are) . FPS for example have a pretty fixed viewpoint so its much more straight forward to turn a game into 3d than a film.

I personally believe that gaming will be the major push for stereo in the home. I'll be buying a large 3d plasma ( and retiring my much loved HD1) very shortly just to prepare for Crysis 2.

A lot of back catalogue games can be turned into true stereo with a minor tweak. Its been possible to put most 3d games into true stereo on a PC since about 1998 just by handling it in the graphics card. Halo is stereo , Call of Duty ???? massive interest and it will be the gamers who are less bothered by things like glasses.

I know that and I've seen a lot of those glasses for many many years now about translating your crt screens and computer games into 3D. That's not what I was getting at.

What I was saying is that I would be sad if content creators saw 3D as the defacto standard and thus created games FOR 3D. In other words: Trying to make as much junk "fly out of the screen" as possible for that SRS WOW effect* that people, oh-so-love.

As long as the game is 100% the way it "should be" in 2D, then I could care less what they do 3D-wise. I just don't want the shift to 3D content creation, specifically.

*I call all "effects" on receivers, displays, etc. "SRS WOW effects" because of its labeling on WMP and how much I hate how people think these "effects" improve how something should sound or look. Ugh.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 1824
2/16/11 at 7:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matman1970 View Post

Fad for the foreseeable future.

Right now its a compromise technology, not a next step. Most 3D is less crisp and detailed than 2D. Most of the time the 3D objects in the foreground lack believable "mass" and it feels like I am looking at a pop-up book. I shouldn't have to give up on one area to get another. B&W to Color to HD were all clear steps forward without the drawbacks. 3D is not there yet.


PS. I do believe the poll this time will have a better showing for the "Not A Fad" simply because of human psychology of wanting to justify your purchase instead of admitting you might have bought the new "Betamax".

I voted fad even though I have a 3d tv. Got the set because it had the best picture in 2d as far as my eyes could tell and the feature set had most everything I could want.

That is my anti-betamax arguement .

3d content gives me a headache if watched for very long (less than movie run times). That is something a lot of folks share I am told. A very big strike against it.

Plus for it to really take off it has to be viable for the manditory sex scenes in movies and who wants to duck and yell "Ack! Balls!" when watching a movie? Sure Ack! Axe! or Ack! Knife! but not... well you get the picture .
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 1824
2/16/11 at 8:57pm
As I've been professing in the other forum, the reason that 3D has made little penetration in the home has little to do with interest, glasses or even the lack of content.

It's all about the end of frivolous consumer spending due to credit card debt, home mortgages one couldn't afford, the loss of pension benefits and personal savings combined with mismanagement and fraud on the part of financial leaders, all which resulted in the biggest recession and highest amount of unemployment since the great depression of the thirties.

In addition, an estimated 70% of all families today now own at least one HD monitor. There is also an average of three TV sets per household. How many are simply going to discard a perfectly good set they spent a lot of money on just to invest in another one for the sake of 3D and/or internet connectivity?

Sales figures in general began to decline a year before 3D television became available on the consumer market. This past year firms like Sony, Samsung, Panasonic, Toshiba, etc experienced major revenue drops in their television divisions and have scaled back the amount of sets being produced in the first quarter of 2011.

3D was seen as a way the industry could reverse that downward trend and inundated us with marketing projections that were more hype than scientific analysis. When that failed, Madison Avenue tried to convince consumers that today's sets were infinitely better compared to those of just a few years ago due to advances in response time, contrast ratios, black levels and more primary colors (which can only be measured on laboratory equipment anyway). Finally, industry executives themselves are acknowledging their mistake was assuming consumers would "upgrade" every two or three years and now estimate the average individual is expected to keep his or her set for an average seven years while most who are indeed in the market to buy a new HD monitor are interested in bigger screens and saving money by opting for their less expensive models instead (and in my opinion, other than a bigger screen, there is really nothing to upgrade to).

I wouldn't mind having 3D in our home, even if just for an occasional lark, but I'm not going to dump either of the two beautiful HD sets I currently have to get it. The consumer electronics industry acknowledges this too and even though the hoopla at the CE fair in Las Vegas again this year focused on all the new 3D devices that will become available, the new big selling items are androids, tablets, etc., not 3D televisions or those with internet connectivity.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 1824
2/16/11 at 9:16pm
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.

Interesting that you say, that because I experience that to an extent. There were only a few scenes in Avatar that grabbed me as 3D. But it's not that I miss out on the detail, I think it's that I am immersed in the movie regardless. So 3D doesn't or at least hasn't really had much of an impact on me personally.

A vote for fad.
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 1824
2/16/11 at 9:17pm
I have a 3D capable receiver, but my TV is not. Toss the 50 incher in the garbage I think not.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 1824
2/16/11 at 9:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kamui View Post

Personally, I detest 3D content for the fear that movie makers will focus all their attention on that aspect and neglect the film more for 2D.

This is a truly big fear for me with video games. I loathe the idea of games going 3D. If they start worrying about making crap pop out of the screen and not focusing on making a good game instead, I'll cry.

I'm not exactly sure how you think you would design a game so as to have things popping out of the screen.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 1824
2/16/11 at 9:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppabk View Post

I'm not exactly sure how you think you would design a game so as to have things popping out of the screen.

Simple: I wouldn't.

Ha. But seriously, I just meant the "effect" of things "coming out at you" (please note the quotation marks).

I'm specifically referring to creators focusing on the "3D effect", over creating a great 2D game. No need to make it any more complicated than that.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 1824
2/16/11 at 9:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post

As I've been professing in the other forum, the reason that 3D has made little penetration in the home has little to do with interest, glasses or even the lack of content.

It's all about the end of frivolous consumer spending due to credit card debt, home mortgages one couldn't afford, the loss of pension benefits and personal savings combined with mismanagement and fraud on the part of financial leaders, all which resulted in the biggest recession and highest amount of unemployment since the great depression of the thirties.

In addition, an estimated 70% of all families today now own at least one HD monitor. There is also an average of three TV sets per household. How many are simply going to discard a perfectly good set they spent a lot of money on just to invest in another one for the sake of 3D and/or internet connectivity?

Sales figures in general began to decline a year before 3D television became available on the consumer market. This past year firms like Sony, Samsung, Panasonic, Toshiba, etc experienced major revenue drops in their television divisions and have scaled back the amount of sets being produced in the first quarter of 2011.

3D was seen as a way the industry could reverse that downward trend and inundated us with marketing projections that were more hype than scientific analysis. When that failed, Madison Avenue tried to convince consumers that today's sets were infinitely better compared to those of just a few years ago due to advances in response time, contrast ratios, black levels and more primary colors (which can only be measured on laboratory equipment anyway). Finally, industry executives themselves are acknowledging their mistake was assuming consumers would "upgrade" every two or three years and now estimate the average individual is expected to keep his or her set for an average seven years while most who are indeed in the market to buy a new HD monitor are interested in bigger screens and saving money by opting for their less expensive models instead (and in my opinion, other than a bigger screen, there is really nothing to upgrade to).

I wouldn't mind having 3D in our home, even if just for an occasional lark, but I'm not going to dump either of the two beautiful HD sets I currently have to get it. The consumer electronics industry acknowledges this too and even though the hoopla at the CE fair in Las Vegas again this year focused on all the new 3D devices that will become available, the new big selling items are androids, tablets, etc., not 3D televisions or those with internet connectivity.

As I mentioned, EXTREMELY poor timing releasing this into the wild. Either that, as you say, it is gimmickry to boost lagging sales. Either way it does not bode well.

Has anyone seen the new BestBuy commercial advertising their buyback program? Guy is having a 3D TV being delivered....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZAAZ7iXN-o

Yeah....(notice the "Now without glasses..." on the truck)

Even the retailers realize the hilarity of it.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 1824
2/16/11 at 9:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post


Man are you going to be eating those words in the next 18 months

I am VERY much looking forward to what you might be talking about!

I think what some folks here are missing is that no one is forcing anyone to watch 3D. There are a tremendous amount of new productions in the works to hit the theaters in 2011 and 2012, from Spiderman, to Batman, and more.

and the reason is simple... There are plenty of people who prefer 3D and are willing to pay extra to see it. But there will still be the 2D versions available to watch for those who don't. Seems fine to me..

And no one HAS to upgrade their sets either, but in all likelihood, 3D compatibility is going to become pretty standard on good LCD and plasma flat screens fairly soon, making it a no brainer for new owners to try it.

The real difference is going to be the QUALITY of the 3D that people are watching. I thought the Panasonic 3D plasma set was really superb until I saw the first test output from my dual projector test setup, which frankly blew it out of the water - much brighter, and no flickering.

Yet many folks here have seen 3D displays inferior to the Pannys also, so it's hard to get an idea based on that.

Arguably, the best 3D you can see right now is in a cinema, but yet my test setup has blown most of the cinema presentations out of the water also. But most people will never be able to see my setup and understand what I mean by that.

Then add to that, asinine attempts at 3D conversions from 2D, such as The Last Airbender. I'm singling this out, because I watched only 5 minutes of that crap and had to turn it off laughing. In the very first scenes, their fur coats were "stretched" out behind them like they had a rack of 10 more attached to their backs. It was ludicrous, and I can't believe they allowed that into the cinema that way.

So the only way forward is to produce native 3D content for now. I have yet to see the new Terranex 2D to 3D converter, but hope it's good enough to allow on-the-fly conversion of any 2D films I may choose to watch. But it's hard to believe it will match native.

So there are a lot of native 3D productions in the pipe, which I am looking forward to. And as the catalog grows, it may tempt more folks to use the feature on their new sets.

No one will force folks to ditch their new HD sets, but over time folks will upgrade their sets, even if they see 3D as a worthless freebie. Others will upgrade specifically for 3D also, of course.

Thanks to the standards in place now, the 3D display capability will become much more commonplace. Not everyone will use it, but FAR more folks will have access to it than before.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 1824
2/16/11 at 10:01pm
Its a fad to me. Yeah there's some films out there that will use the 3D technology but in the end the vast majority of content is 2D and will remain 2D because honestly do we need Parks And Recreation in 3D?

Oh wait.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJc8lXfb0nA
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 1824
2/16/11 at 10:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by twisted_oak View Post

As I mentioned, EXTREMELY poor timing releasing this into the wild. Either that, as you say, it is gimmickry to boost lagging sales. Either way it does not bode well.

Has anyone seen the new BestBuy commercial advertising their buyback program? Guy is having a 3D TV being delivered....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZAAZ7iXN-o

Yeah....(notice the "Now without glasses..." on the truck)

Even the retailers realize the hilarity of it.

Thanks for the youtube link.

Knew of the buy back program but that advertisement goes beyond being hilarious, it's going to blow up in Best Buy's face! It accents the negative, not the positive by coming across as a sarcastic put-down of industry spin about products purchased a year or so ago not being as good as those today . It's a routine more appropriate for SNL and I suspect Best Buy executives are privately being blasted by their fellow industry partners for it's certainly not going to get consumers to replace what they already have.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 1824
2/16/11 at 10:19pm
I think 3D is here to stay. The only thing that will change is how it is delivered. It looks like companies like Samsung and LG have heard consumer complaints regarding glasses, flickering, eye strain, etc. The major brands are all working on new and innovative ways to deliver 3D content to the mainstream. Passive polarized, FPR, etc.

One thing I did think was very interesting was that LG stated that, going forward, the only plan to update 3D technology in LCD sets and will not do 3D plasma. What does that mean, that Panny and Sammy will pretty much dominate plasma?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Community News & Polls

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › Ok...Holidays are now over, so, how about 3D now?