or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Displays › In 5 years...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

In 5 years...

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 
will we all look back and say-"too bad 3D never took off."Just because cable companies and movie makers never took it seriously.Will we put our sets in storage "just in case" 3D makes a comeback so we can purchase that "new" set with all the bling that just came out? I personally am disappointed with the availability of 3D overall.Sure wish the movie industry was as prepared as the set manufacturers thought they were.
post #2 of 21
i like 3D a lot man, i used to visit cinema every week, now i decided to buy a 3D TV, like samsung most, so it will save my money from cinema.
Recently directors are always tried to make movies in 3d, because 3d is new invention and they can keep it up for next couple of years.
post #3 of 21
It isn't just the film industry. I think it would really help if television, particularly sports, began using it a little more frequently.
post #4 of 21
i don't think there is too much to worry about right now, the tech is usually avalaible much wuicker than the media, when dvd playres first came out, dvd's were very minimal to buy, same with blu ray. When HDTV first came out, the HD channels weren't as rampant as they are now, hell you couldn't even watch local prgramming in Hd right away,

now granted with 3D it does seem to be taking abit longer to get as much media out there for the home consumer, but a lot of that is exclusive deals with manufacturer's, also not every movie is made in 3D and i seriously doubt every movie will be in 3D in the future either, it'll only be more of the animated, suoer-hero, and occasional action flick.

What we do need is more programming via cable, satellite or even OTA to get some real milage out of 3D.

I have a 3D set, and i do not regret buying it one bit, and i know in time there'll be more and more access to 3D, both in media, programming and even streaming options available
post #5 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by tripod39 View Post

will we all look back and say-"too bad 3D never took off."Just because cable companies and movie makers never took it seriously.Will we put our sets in storage "just in case" 3D makes a comeback so we can purchase that "new" set with all the bling that just came out? I personally am disappointed with the availability of 3D overall.Sure wish the movie industry was as prepared as the set manufacturers thought they were.

There are quite a lot of 3D movies being released in Theatres this year, at least 30 so I don't know why you think it isn't taking off. Not every movie is going to be made in 3D and its still rather early in the life of the technology which is continuously evolving on all fronts.

In five years I think you will be pleasantly surprised, not dissapointed.
post #6 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by THe_Flash View Post

It isn't just the film industry. I think it would really help if television, particularly sports, began using it a little more frequently.

Cable companies don't seem too interested.
post #7 of 21
As interested as I am in 3D, I can't handle it. It literally pains me to watch any 3D. I only know of a few people who can enjoy 3D anything without eye strain or discomfort. I think this is the reason why it isn't, and probably won't take off.

I recently joined in on a thread about 3D viewing. And it seemed like those people who enjoy 3D, see those who can't, as either those who aren't viewing the right material, or just people who choose to dislike it. While people who can't enjoy it due to eye strain or just a bad experience, see the whole 3D thing as gimmicky. This makes it tough for 3D to be taken serious. It's a pretty clear division between those who like it and those who don't.

I've had people tell me that I'm lying about headaches from 3D viewing. As if I'm so "anti-3D" that I'd do anything to spread my negative views on it. While I've also seen people bad-mouth another person for having a 3D setup, because they felt like that person was simply materialistic and needed to brag about having the latest technology. Ha. It's a weird thing, 3D.
post #8 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterofBlasting View Post

As interested as I am in 3D, I can't handle it. It literally pains me to watch any 3D. I only know of a few people who can enjoy 3D anything without eye strain or discomfort. I think this is the reason why it isn't, and probably won't take off.

I recently joined in on a thread about 3D viewing. And it seemed like those people who enjoy 3D, see those who can't, as either those who aren't viewing the right material, or just people who choose to dislike it. While people who can't enjoy it due to eye strain or just a bad experience, see the whole 3D thing as gimmicky. This makes it tough for 3D to be taken serious. It's a pretty clear division between those who like it and those who don't.

I've had people tell me that I'm lying about headaches from 3D viewing. As if I'm so "anti-3D" that I'd do anything to spread my negative views on it. While I've also seen people bad-mouth another person for having a 3D setup, because they felt like that person was simply materialistic and needed to brag about having the latest technology. Ha. It's a weird thing, 3D.

It is possible something else rather than the content is causing you problems. Screen size? Screen type? TV type? I don't have any problems watching 3D ( i currently have a Panasonic plasma,-active 3D) but my mom did complain of some headaches. Have you ever tried passive 3D? Definitely easier on the eyes but you will sacrifice slight performance when viewed up close (for 2011 models on screen sizes 55"+) on passive 3D TVs (LG, Vizio, Toshiba).
post #9 of 21
Wow that was a huge quote, I am replying without quotes. You nailed it on the head when you said the division between those who love 3d and those who don't is huge. It seems to be an all or nothing thing with 3d. I do believe the people who are in the middle would watch it in theaters if they didnt have to pay more to see it, and might watch it occasionally if it was just standard issue and could use the glasses they brought home with them from the cinema.
post #10 of 21
Idk if 3d will take off like it should of like back in the old days... but I know when they make holographic movies where u can see 360 view of the movie that'll definitely make a lot of noise in movie technology. That'll be a few years from now quote me on this! Like in the movie Pay Check.
post #11 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaypesos05 View Post

Idk if 3d will take off like it should of like back in the old days... but I know when they make holographic movies where u can see 360 view of the movie that'll definitely make a lot of noise in movie technology. That'll be a few years from now quote me on this! Like in the movie Pay Check.

Weren't they using red/blue back then? 3D is a no brainier when you take away the darkening effect and the reduction in clarity. When those problems are removed, the 3D looks totally natural and your just a watching the world through a window instead of watch a picture of it. You can see this with the Sony HMZ very well since it doesn't use polarization or shutter. Its easier to tell in games, which separate the images enough to make your eyes stare straight on for distant images, thereby increasing the depth to realistic values, but the 3D technology being used to today might not be a holodeck, but after 600 hours of 3d gaming using a high field of view display, at only 720p, i guarantee the current 3D technology has the potential to be a viewport to a holodeck, a totally realistic looking window into a holodeck. Thats with games, in particular games with high resolution textures and realistic lighting. From that its easy to tell. You can sort of see that "viewport to a holodeck" concept watching my vids on 3DTV with a screen size close to 46", the commpresion and content aren't ideal, but was used just as an example.

I wouldn't hold your breath for holograms. How is a hologram going to make a skyscraper *feel* monstrously large, and far away? Or tell your brain the bottom of a cliff dangerously far down.
post #12 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterofBlasting View Post

As interested as I am in 3D, I can't handle it. It literally pains me to watch any 3D. I only know of a few people who can enjoy 3D anything without eye strain or discomfort. I think this is the reason why it isn't, and probably won't take off.

I recently joined in on a thread about 3D viewing. And it seemed like those people who enjoy 3D, see those who can't, as either those who aren't viewing the right material, or just people who choose to dislike it. While people who can't enjoy it due to eye strain or just a bad experience, see the whole 3D thing as gimmicky. This makes it tough for 3D to be taken serious. It's a pretty clear division between those who like it and those who don't.

I've had people tell me that I'm lying about headaches from 3D viewing. As if I'm so "anti-3D" that I'd do anything to spread my negative views on it. While I've also seen people bad-mouth another person for having a 3D setup, because they felt like that person was simply materialistic and needed to brag about having the latest technology. Ha. It's a weird thing, 3D.

I didn't feel much of any discomfort when i started using 3D, but i had maybe 45 minutes or so of viewing 3D crosseye photos spread over a year or so, which took some getting used to and caused some discomfort. A lot of people think you can condition yourself to 3D, and i agree. I wonder, have you tried watching a movie or part of one, then trying again a couple days later? Also, I have my doubts, but i wonder if viewing cross eye images every now and then might condition your brain/eyes to 3D more so? Heres some really fascinating ones just in case you want to try:



I mention this because i know for certain that I at least have gotten used to certain aspects of 3D viewing. For example, when i first started viewing 3D, when i moved my head side to side, it was not comfortable at all, and gradually it stopped bothering me. Also, crosseye viewing was not comfortable, and i had a hard time looking around the image, but overcame that as well and can focus usually instantly and look freely around the image.

Something im really curious about if you don't mind: What do you think you discomfort is caused by? Do think its caused by changing convergence which keeps all objects at screen depth regardless of their distance from the camera, or do you think its from what most people think it is, the accommodation disparity? Let me know if i need to explain that more.
post #13 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaypesos05 View Post

Idk if 3d will take off like it should of like back in the old days... but I know when they make holographic movies where u can see 360 view of the movie that'll definitely make a lot of noise in movie technology. That'll be a few years from now quote me on this! Like in the movie Pay Check.

Ok I quoted you. But I have to disagree. Glasses free tech is many many years away. I have a glasses free 3d phone and there are so many reasons why glass free technology can only be used by a single individual.
post #14 of 21
I am finding between BD releases and Direct TV 3D the content to be petty darn good these days. My wife and I are averaging around 6 hours of quality 3D per week.
post #15 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaypesos05 View Post

Idk if 3d will take off like it should of like back in the old days... but I know when they make holographic movies where u can see 360 view of the movie that'll definitely make a lot of noise in movie technology. That'll be a few years from now quote me on this! Like in the movie Pay Check.

So you think people are going to be walking around a movie instead of just sitting in a seat? That's pretty radical isn't it . . . and tiring
post #16 of 21
In 5 years . . .

3D movies will be shot at either 4K @ 48 FPS or 4K @ 60 FPS instead of 2K @ 24 FPS
post #17 of 21
Hologram displays would not be so desirable for 360 degree viewing, because that would severely limit how large the image could be. It would have to fit in the center of your room. But it would be good to have a wall sized display that changed the perspective as the viewers moved their heads from side to side. That kind of thing might be economically practical in fifteen or twenty years.
post #18 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

In 5 years . . .

3D movies will be shot at either 4K @ 48 FPS or 4K @ 60 FPS

I sure hope so.
post #19 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrickMcKaha View Post

Hologram displays would not be so desirable for 360 degree viewing, because that would severely limit how large the image could be. It would have to fit in the center of your room. But it would be good to have a wall sized display that changed the perspective as the viewers moved their heads from side to side. That kind of thing might be economically practical in fifteen or twenty years.

What about vertigo?
post #20 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post


What about vertigo?

I don't think vertigo happens so much when the viewers themselves are causing the change by moving their own heads. Like how people don't get car sick as much if they are driving vs. being a passenger.
post #21 of 21
I was imagining a display that did not exaggerate our head movements, one that changed the perspective only as much as it would change if we were actually there moving our heads. Not rotating our heads, just a little side to side, so we could sorta look around things a little.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Displays
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Displays › In 5 years...