Ok...Holidays are now over, so, how about 3D now? - Page 4

Spoken like a true Sears salespeople.. pompous AND misinformed.

Hey I didn't say it will be a good thing

There are going to be a couple of very very big classic fins coming down the pipe as 3d conversions in the next year or so.

This sums it up. I bought my VT25 not for the 3D but since I was already planning to upgrade to a larger TV and wanted the best product. The fact that it came with a 3D bundle with Avatar was a plus in my book. I have only seen two 3D movies on the set so far. Avatar and the Imax Grand Canyon movie. Tried watching the 3D trailer for Tron on Vudu and that was just horrible viewing. There is not enough content and not enough places renting that content to allow me to use it more.

I found his post condescending and generally patronizing .. not to mention a definite feeling of his chest thumping superiority .. after all, many of us on AVS are long time enthusiasts and don't need a lesson ..

When a poster adds terminology like "I want you realize how ignorant and misinformed you sound." to a post, it pretty much says it all ..

That's what I have brought up before in the other 3D thread.
Ghpr13

Indeed .. ?? I am thinking those will do as well as the fad toward colorization of B&W classics that we went thru years ago ..

I second that!

I can't believe everyone is going so ballistic on this topic. I have a 3DTV and guess what, it does a great job on 2D content as well, in fact I think it does a better job than the TV's that don't have 3D on them.

Is 3D perfect yet? No.
Is 3D getting better? Yes.
Should we ditch something because it isn't perfected yet? No.

Every technology takes time to be perfected, made cost effective, and be accepted on a wide base.

When CG first came into the movies it looked like crap. Did they decide that it looked too fake and that it simply took away from the film and should be abandoned? No, they kept working on it until it has become the norm that it is today.

While I don't think 3D is where it needs to be for wide acceptance yet, I do believe the technology will be around for years to come and it will become commonplace in most homes. I don't believe everything will be 3D and I think that 2D will always be around, but I don't believe 3D will go the way of the beta-max.

Furthermore, every argument stating that 3D will be like beta-max, HD-DVD, and LaserDisc is irrelevant and comparing apples to oranges. Each one of those medias in it's basic physical form was widely used and accepted for a period of time. For magnetic film it was in the form of VHS, for digital discs it was in the form of DVD, and is currently in the form Blu-Rays. What failed were the individually licensed forms of delivering data on a specific media.

That being said, there will be forms of delivery of 3D that will inevitably fail and fall by the wayside but there will be a widely accepted "winning" 3D format that will be around for years to come.

I question the hype from the industry about only 3D models can offer the best picture quality available (adding of course, that it only pertains to their 3D set alone). What does that insinunate -- that anything less is vastly inferior? Or that performance is very, very close but a slight cut below? Or is it simply companies touting specifications that can only be measured on laboratory equipment and not seen by the human eye therefore having no relevancy to picture quality at all?

In the previous forum some time ago I posted an article about controlled tests conducted by professional research groups regarding the differences in picture quality between lower priced and more expensive name brand HD monitors that were professionally calibrated and adjusted. Findings showed that consumers hardly found any distinguishable differences between the lower and higher priced monitors and for the few that did, it was a lesser expensive model that they preferred. And when they saw motion artificacts it was part of the source material and seen across the board on all sets.

Getting the best 2D picture quality only through a 3D monitor is nothing more than a sales pitch. It's not like the Kuro sets of a few years ago which the consenus of videophiles agreed yielded a slightly more natural and detailed picture than all others, but that the price was so high this bit of a difference wasn't worth it to most.

And the ipad is a recycled fad from the 90's. Apple seem to be doing ok with it though.

Hmm, buttkickers neve really went out of style. Many on here in the theater forums installed and use them.

That one gave me a chuckle... back in my college days I worked at Sears and that pretty much described every commissioned salesperson. Glad to see things haven't changed over there.

I voted in favor of establishing standards. Seems natural to me that doing so would encourage content makers and content providers. I already assume that a 3D feature in some form will be on the next television I buy, but I don't currently plan to use it at all.

As for my own personal preferences - I end up multitasking while watching television - picking up after the kid, using the laptop, etc. Glasses are never, ever going to work for me for standard viewing, and I don't watch nearly enough movies to make them worthwhile for extended viewing, especially considering the dearth of content available now. For me 3D is just a non-factor until it becomes a bit easier to use and the content is more compelling.

A full array "intelligent" backlit Sony in 2010, the XBR xxHX909 series, was available in one flavor - 3D. Yes, it's true, I should have not bought the glasses and IR sync emitter, but I had high expectations for Sony (they have in the past, perhaps not so much now, made AV equipment that was pretty good)... and I've seen a few 3D movies with polarized glasses and really enjoyed it. With the idea of LCD shutter glasses, I thought they really had a great idea and had worked out all the problems before release. Oops. Hasn't turned out that way. With better glasses (lighter, more comfortable, elimination of flicker at any time or any brightness) I'd be OK with the current state of 3D television.

No it's not. It's an IMPROVED fad, and THAT's why Apple is doing ok with it.

3D is a form of entertainment; it's analogous to adding color to a black and white signal. I purchased one of the Samsung 3D ready DLP sets back in 2007 because it was their top of the line back then and way cheaper than the plasmas and LCD's at the time. I implemented the 3D feature on it back in December when the Mitsu adapter and Geffen spoofer solution came out for converting the new formats to checkerboard output compatible with the DLP sets. After trying out the DLP-link glasses with poor results, I purchased the Xpand 103 universal IR glasses which work perfectly. After having and using 3D for about two months now I can say that I still get excited about it like a kid with a new toy. For those of you with 3D ready DLP sets, I highly recommend 3D as it looks great and is FUN. Lot's of oohs and ahhs from my (non videophile) friends. The top tier TV's tend to have 3D implemented, so if you're in the market for one of those you will likely be getting 3D along with the deal. Is it worth running out and buying six or seven hundred dollars worth of shutter glasses so you can have your friends over to watch a 3D movie? That depends on how much of a techie you are (and how deep your pockets are...). The selection of Blu-ray movies is very limited at the present time however, and it is unfortunate about the exclusive deals with manufacturers such as Panasonic with Avatar, as this has inevitably hurt the 3D rollout. I am waiting for Netflix to have 3D Blu-ray available but am not holding my breath as I believe that eventually Netflix will be getting out of disc-based content altogether, and lower quality highly compressed streaming video will dominate the market just as mp3's have taken over music and left CD's on the back burner. There are several 3D games available on the PS3 if you are a gaming fan ( I own one and use it to play 3D Blu-rays and games. The 3D firmware upgrade was FREE ), and the 3D software implementation seems very good. Does it have limitations? Yes. Does video 2:3 pulldown cause judder? Yes. Does that mean we shouldn't watch 24 fps film based content on our 60 hz HDTV's?... Is 3D fun? To me it is a hoot. I still enjoy regular 2D Blu-rays and the 3D is like a treat that is worth waiting for. Is it a fad? Does it matter? All I know is that it is fun and it works!

2nd time you've made that analogy that doesn't apply here. The iPad is a larger iPod/iPhone - and Apple had to reverse course on the "smaller is better" sentiment that applied to cell phones, computers and mp3 players before the landscape was ripe for the iPad.

When someone comes up with another application that motivates people to wear (or don't leave home without) goggles the vast majority of the time - then if you adapt them to 3DTV viewing, you'll have a comparable situation with the current smartphone/tablet market.

Personally, I think the major leap forward with 3D came in the '80s when they went with the gray lenses over the red/blue lenses of the '50s. Going to battery operated goggles is a step back in the minds of home viewers.

Bottom line, like others have mentioned, television is still a social activity shared with everyone within a room. As long as individual equipment is required, it's going to be too cumbersome to really get wide adoption. Your television will always have a "Maximum Capacity" determined by the number of working sets of glasses you have on hand.

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.

A dozen of us watched Avatar 3D on my "ultimate 3D projection" test system last night. Not one person left unhappy with 3D. And I know if there was more non-animated content available, they would all return for another film tonight (we're adults, so there's less draw for something like Monsters vs Aliens).

The delivery systems will keep improving, certainly, but I really think that the tech is here to stay, since various implementations of displaying it will be built into a lot of sets sold now and in the future.

However, the content is critical. If I have nothing else to show them next week, then it's gonna be a 2D show (nothing wrong with 2D either of course). But I know I can't show them converted crap like Last Airbender...

I think we are turning a corner now. Some excellent big name franchises are in the pipeline for native 3D. I can't wait...

My Pioneer Kuro PDP-6020FD and I take issue when painting with such a broad brush. I made my purchase when I knew that 3D was coming and still have seen nothing that makes me regret my significant cash outlay for a stellar 2D experience. My stance on the current push for 3D has nothing to do with dollars spent, and everything to do with underwhelming visual quality and content.

Honestly, it is my belief that the current 3D push is the industry's stopgap measure to generate revenue in a time where 4k is not financially viable for the consumer market (and the unavoidable fact that no media exists for it). The technology to get 3D into the hands of the mass market public for a reasonable price was finally attainable and display and player manufacturers jumped at the chance to bring something new to the table.

So, nevermind that most 3D experiences are contrived and gimicky, the public demands "new and shiny" and this is what was offered. My only fear is that it will lead to further diminishment of overall image fidelity even when viewing in 2D.

I agree. Personally, I am tired of seeing people being used as test subjects for R&D projects. However, I do realize that most economic models operate on the peaks and valleys of end user cash. (see recession/recovery)

The thing that is very frustrating is that all these different ways of displaying 3d are out there. The fact is the companies want that licensing dough. While they fight it out for market share, people waste a lot of energy/money.

I understand that this is capitalism in a nutshell, it just seems so wasteful and foolish.

I can't see (pardon the pun) wearing glasses through a 3D movie or show.

Smoke and mirrors. I agree.

But the ipad is still a tablet PC, only the climate and the technology is different now than the last time tablet PC's were exciting new technology. I am not trying to argue that because tablet PC's were once a fad and now are cemented in the public's conscious that the same will be true of 3DTV. 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.
I think that the obstacles that 3D faces now are entirely different to those it faced in the past. The 50's didn't even involve home solutions, and in the 80's, 2D home solutions in the form of VHS were only just beginning to gain traction. The modern landscape is entirely different, and the major obstacle is that people have invested heavily in home theater equipment and TV's, and the way that the CE companies have gone about it means that 3D requires all new equipment.
If all you needed to get any 120Hz capable TV to show 3D was a $20 adapter and a pair of glasses, I think this thread would be entirely different.

Here's my take on 3D:right now there's no question about it, its being treated as a novelty.Yes theres a few movies that just happen to be in 3D and 2D. But If a movies good its good, its not just because its shot in 3D.
I'm a huge fan of Avatar, and never even saw it in 3D, its just a great story, and thats it plain and simple. I watch 3D movies with my family and there ok, but the comments made about in your face objects and other "novelty" shots is all too true..
If Casablanca was 3D would it have been even better?
Besides theres talk of this type of 3D screwing up peoples eyes, not even sure about that.
I won't even take it serious until we lose the stupid 50's glasses.I may watch the occasional movie, but the 3D is just a fad right now.

3D is the same as it has been for me during the last 3 Decades:

IT STILL GIVE'S ME A HEADACHE!!!

What I was saying is that I would be sad if content creators saw Color as the defacto standard and thus created movies FOR Color. In other words: Trying to differentiate objects by individual Colors for that SRS WOW* effect that people, oh-so-love.

As long as the movie is 100% the way it "should be" in Black-and-White, then I could care less what they do Color-wise. I just don't want the shift to Color content creation, specifically.

*This argument just sounds silly when you put it into perspective. What if the last 60 years of movies had never been made in color? Color is not a fad because content makers understood how to use it to tell a better story. One that couldn't be possible otherwise. When 3D content makers start using 3D as a story-telling device (just as with Color or SOUND for that matter), then it will be just as accepted as anything else.

I personally really enjoy a movie in 3D. Hell, some movies are fun to see just for the 3D spectacle. For these movies, that is what a large IMAX screen theater is for. For these types of movie, I will most likely only see once anyways.
Then there are the movies like TRON, Avatar, and dare I say, Despicable Me. These are great movies themselves and I would have no issue owning them and it would be a nice bonus to see in 3D while at home, but not needed.

I think 3D is a fad until the following: Full industry standards being in place, Auto Stereoscopic 3D rendering becomes the norm, content for 3D greatly increases, (e.g.: many Great titles along with just as many fun 3D titles) and finally, when 3D does not drive the price of viewing up through peripherals (i.e. $200 glasses).

Once all of the above come to fruition, then I see 3D taking a position similar to great audio. It will be a nice feature to have. It will be necessary for some people but not others. You could easily spend loads of money opting for perfection, but the majority will be just fine with what is already built into their TV. I can never see 3D viewing as becoming even as prevalent as video game systems are. It may become as common as cheap 5.1 HTiB's though. Maybe.

Why would you be scared of admitting you enjoyed Despicable Me? It's a very well done movie and Universal hit a home run for their first time at bat. Each of the girls in the movie remind me of my niece and nephews so I'm a bit bias.

I am one of the few that 3D just doesn't work on. While I don't care if it's a fad or here to stay, I agree 100% that in order for it to fully catch on standards have to be set otherwise we'll have another HD/Blu-Ray war.

The only thing that will really annoy me is if/when the day comes that I can't find a movie I want to see in 2D. One of my favorite local theaters is "Cinetopia" and I wanted to see Tron there, but they only played it in 3D. I was somewhat annoyed by that and just decided not to see it in the theaters.

For me I'd rather have an excellent quality 2D image that displays depth and "looks 3D". As an example the part in Despicable Me where they are at the fun park with the ping pong ball guns looks very 3D with the multi-levels of focus they employed. I know the movie was originally designed for 3D but the 2D transfer was top notch on my calibrated plasma.

The Dare I say, was for the 3D aspect, not the film itself
I love that movie and own the BD copy.

Just take two pairs of glasses, then take the right eye lens out of one and replace it with the left eye lens of the other pair. tada, all of the downsides of 3D with non of up.

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.

But 3D is here to stay. The technology is at the point where it's good enough and cheap enough, and will only get better and cheaper. You don't need to explain to someone why they want 3d...they see it and they know. Eventually 3d filming equipment will come down in price, techniques will get better. The important thing is that 2d and 3d are not mutually exclusive - a 3d movie can be watched on anything from the highest end display with a 3d bluray to an old b&w TV over broadcast.