Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike W 
My exposure to 3D is limited to Avatar (theater run, Real 3d), Panasonic Plasma and Sim (twin projector, roughly 60K display) movie content shown at a top notch home theater show (as I recall, one used passive glasses and the other active, but I could be misremembering), and NHL hockey on a current model Sony Bravia (active shutter glasses) at a friend's house.
The 3D effect for all of these displays was impressive (especially so for one of the two features shown on the Sims, a car race. It was amazing); hence, my guess that it is a technology that is here to stay. However, my lack of interest in jumping into 3D right now is based on the need to wear the glasses. Foremost is the very noticeable reduction in image brightness, particularly given that my HT is projector-based. For example, at the theater, during Avatar, when I periodically watched without the glasses, I was dismayed by how much brightness was lost. Same for my other 3D experiences. So for me, it simply comes down to a preference of greater brightness over a 3D image, especially given that I'm very happy with my 2D image.
Second, I can't envision myself wearing 3D glasses happily for hours at a time. I enjoyed Avatar (particularly given the low plot expectations with which I entered) and many of the 3D effects were highly engrossing, but I was sure ready to get those glasses off after 3 hours!
Given that, plus the fact that the overwhelming majority of films we watch (including many classics and foreign films) are not made in 3D, I'm perfectly content to see how the technology evolves over the next two to three years before jumping in. I anticipate that the first piece of equipment that I'll be upgrading anyway is my pre-amp, which is non-HDMI (I run multi-channel analog audio to it from my blu-ray, and am very happy with the sound). If I felt the need to replace it now, I would hedge my bet and get one that is 3D compatible, as I think 3D has a good shot of catching on more widely this time around.
Whether affordable (say <10K ) projector brightness will evolve to easily compensate for the brightness reduction imposed by the glasses, the technology used in the glasses will change, or some techno magicians can conjure up a glassless 3D technology that works around the human visual system and displays a large image, who knows. But given how far the whole HT enterprise has come in the last 10-15 years, I wouldn't rule much out.
My exposure to 3D is limited to Avatar (theater run, Real 3d), Panasonic Plasma and Sim (twin projector, roughly 60K display) movie content shown at a top notch home theater show (as I recall, one used passive glasses and the other active, but I could be misremembering), and NHL hockey on a current model Sony Bravia (active shutter glasses) at a friend's house.
The 3D effect for all of these displays was impressive (especially so for one of the two features shown on the Sims, a car race. It was amazing); hence, my guess that it is a technology that is here to stay. However, my lack of interest in jumping into 3D right now is based on the need to wear the glasses. Foremost is the very noticeable reduction in image brightness, particularly given that my HT is projector-based. For example, at the theater, during Avatar, when I periodically watched without the glasses, I was dismayed by how much brightness was lost. Same for my other 3D experiences. So for me, it simply comes down to a preference of greater brightness over a 3D image, especially given that I'm very happy with my 2D image.
Second, I can't envision myself wearing 3D glasses happily for hours at a time. I enjoyed Avatar (particularly given the low plot expectations with which I entered) and many of the 3D effects were highly engrossing, but I was sure ready to get those glasses off after 3 hours!
Given that, plus the fact that the overwhelming majority of films we watch (including many classics and foreign films) are not made in 3D, I'm perfectly content to see how the technology evolves over the next two to three years before jumping in. I anticipate that the first piece of equipment that I'll be upgrading anyway is my pre-amp, which is non-HDMI (I run multi-channel analog audio to it from my blu-ray, and am very happy with the sound). If I felt the need to replace it now, I would hedge my bet and get one that is 3D compatible, as I think 3D has a good shot of catching on more widely this time around.
Whether affordable (say <10K ) projector brightness will evolve to easily compensate for the brightness reduction imposed by the glasses, the technology used in the glasses will change, or some techno magicians can conjure up a glassless 3D technology that works around the human visual system and displays a large image, who knows. But given how far the whole HT enterprise has come in the last 10-15 years, I wouldn't rule much out.
Auto 3D (no glasses) will restore brightness in the images but it has a ways to go before it becomes a foolproof tech ready for consumers. So that leaves the glasses.
Yes, the glasses do severely cut down the brightness of the images. Can be from 60% to 80% depending on the method and quality of the glasses. That's why IMAX chooses to use dual projectors for both their Digital and 15/70 3D theaters.
Some people have been turning to dual projectors for their HT for increased brightness and the opportunity to use passive instead of active glasses. The 3D Display Forum is a good place to look for threads on these setups. Look for Infitec and Optoma 3D-XL in the thread titles. Also there is a sticky on 3D screens that might interest you.
Too bad 3D wasn't introduced a few years ago during the height of the HD television purchasing boom when replacing a HD set and the economic downturn wasn't much of a factor - we might have thus had our answer by this time. I know it might have been a consideration for me but whether or not it would resulted in a purchase I do not know.
