Anybody getting tired of 3D? - Page 5

Yes, you can do that.

oh man that is fantastic ^_^

I've been able to spot passive 3D displays in stores, even when they're displaying 2D content and I'm not looking at them through glasses. Yes, passive is much more convenient and inexpensive, but I couldn't watch it without being reminded of my old CRT. If I had passive I would probably be re-watching all my 3D movies in 2D just to see the extra detail I missed.

My Dad uses some cheap clip on's all the time at the theater. They were just a few dollars on amazon.

SO you're saying that 240hz is comparable to a 60hz refresh? LOL

240hz, that's twice as fast as the faster consumer CRTs that were revered by the ultrahardcore enthusiast gamers.

Surely you generalize based on some subpar passive model you saw at Walmart.

There is no "extra" detail missing while watching Blu-ray 3D, at least not on an LG LW5600! Try it before you knock it!

@ Daniel Chavez: I too wear my clip-ons to the theater, and yes, it is great. OTOH, they do not work in IMAX 3D theaters (different polarization), I tried that as well, so keep it in mind!

Great to know there are passive 3D projection set-ups, BTW!

Also, seems LG LW6500 owners complain about the glossy screen. LW5600 is quite matte. We enjoy it even in a brightly lit room.

I love 3d, but I am tired of having to buy every blu ray 3d I want to watch. I cant wait for the day that 3d blus hit Netflix and/or Redbox!

Exactly. I learned my lesson with my DVD collection of 200+ that I only watched once. Of the 200+ I have I have watched maybe 10 more than once and maybe 5 of those a dozen times. Netflix or redbox just needs to strat the rentals already.

Sometimes when watching a movie in 3d (including some good ones like Hugo, avengers and Avatar) I catch my self wondering if i'de be enjoying it more in 2D.

I have a samsung 60ES8000 television and am using the included 3d glasses, sitting about 9 feet from the screen. the issue i have is that the screen is definitelly darker due to the active glasses and I have no work around. If i increase the brightness or backlight further- the picture quality degrades a bit. Also I hate that the room really needs to be pitch black to enjoy 3d at all. Even the slightest bit of ambient light (and all of my movie room lighting is either on the side wall well aimed away from the screen, or rope lighting mounted to the rear of the screen) will cause glare, and reflections in the glasses as well as make the brightness issue more apparent.

If i didnt feel like i was losing more picture information then gaining it might not bother me so much. The pop out effects lose their appeal very quickly for me when I feel like i;m missing detail in the picture.

I can't tell if my fatigue with 3d is caused by my TV or my glasses (which im dieing to replace but cant find anything that is definitevelly better so if anyone has a suggestion- hit me up please).

But my girlfriend and our friends all very much enjoy the 3D experience and so we use 3d mode every chance we can.


As for games... I haven't played many PS3 games that actually have 3d. Just Ratchet and Clank 4 and although I actually really, really do like the effect for the game.... it seems to reduce the games actual resolution so dramatically that its unbarable. the jaggies are horrid and the detail is just lost. Not that the game has good graphics anyhow... but the 3d effect would be a lot of fun with that game if it didnt butcher the rest of the visual presentation. I fear that I'll find this issue to be true with other games too, we'll see when i finish uncharted 2 and start 3. I'm also a bit skewed on graphics though, i PC game on a 2560x1440 IPS thus im used to near perfection - or at least as far as the software can go.

Not tired of 3D, as it makes up about 1% (if that) of my TV viewing. There are some movies, like Avatar, that I wouldn't even bother to watch in 2D. Also in that category would be any 3D movie that I saw in the theater.I own a few 3D blu rays that I haven't opened yet because it's been too soon since I saw them in a theater.

FYI -- I have an LG passive 3D display, and bought a brand of frame for corrective lenses [Revolution] that has an available 3D clipon. It might be a few years away, but I'd like an affordable 4k2k display that will finally show the complete resolution of today's 3D blu-rays.

Give it 2 years and there will be. As fast as technology has been moving the past 3 years it wouldnt surprise me i it was even sooner.

Since we are talking 3d what would you go for lg 55" cinema 3d or optoma hd33 projector since they are both priced about the same?

You know the saying "bigger is better". That goes double for 3D. I went with the 65" LG. That Optoma requires active glasses, if I'm not mistaken. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I looked into passive projection but that's a bit more involved and it's my understanding that 2D doesn't look as good compared to a regular 2D projector setup. I'll probably go with that eventually though, and hope for technical improvements and lower prices.

Good luck.

isn't that PJ active tech? Expensive glasses, screen options, $$$. But should you afford it --- I wish I could LOL --- I'd say go with front projection...

EDIT: fritzi93 beat me to it, same concept

I have the 33 and would say that it is the way to go. The glasses can be found on line for a reasonable price (I use the Optoma zd101 dlp link)
I have a friend who has a 55" 3d and he sais he would sell his in a minute to replace it with a 33.

Why not just get an 80" LED 3D TV? Are the projectors better quality? I havent seen the new ones but the ones of the past werent nearly as good as Tv's now

...because the 80" ones I've seen are ~ $5000 vs an Optoma HD33 for ~ $1300 (Which can potentially throw an image that will fit two or three 80" screens. I have an Optoma HD3300 and, although it can't compete with the blacks you can get on a good TV, bigger really is better in this case. The immersion you can get from a large screen is fantastic. Friends flock over to my house when a good new release comes out. From what I've read, Active DLP front projection is the best 3D the home has to offer as of yet. I can't compare, but it is truly amazing. Glasses aren't that bad, either. You can get decent ones for around 30 bucks.

I actually thought about getting a projector before I bought my Tv. The obvious reason I wanted one was for the size. I have a fairly large room 20 x 20 so I didnt want anything less than a 50" tv. I went with a Plasma 3D due to cost and simplicity and the internet apps are pretty cool to have since I use Pandora and other music apps. How good does regular HDTV and cable look on the screens?

Good question... wondering how the Super Bowl would look on a giant screen , maybe even considering a 2D-3D conversion for such things, so another question could be whether or not PJs offer it...

Well I cant say about the conversion options but as for smart apps well most blu-ray players now offer apps so like the Samsung 3d Blu-Ray player I plan to get will have their smart apps so I would have access to pandora and netflix and what not still so no need for the projector to have that feature.

Outside of movies, I mostly use my projector for sports which look very good on the screen. I don't get the black levels and overall color saturation as my plasma but the size of the screen more than makes up for it. I'm not saying the plasma is night and day better, just somewhat better on blacks and saturation. As far as getting tired of 3d, definitly not. I watched Matagascar 3 today, it looks very good. I watched a little in 2d, no contest.

I just bought Amazing Spiderman 3D and was disappointed in the lack of pop out for a movie such as this. You would think it would be almost non-stop pop out. I thought Resident Evil Afterlife 3D was much better in that aspect. At least the sound was pretty amazing. It was often too low for my PA-150 sub but I was surprised in some scenes I felt the punch from the sub even being a good 17 Feet back from it. I kind of wish I bought the new Underworld movie instead.

My experience has been that it looks just ok. I believe I have it set to 720p as opposed to 1080i simply for watching sports. Ugliness gets amplified when you go to a larger screen. On the whole I would say hdtv looks better on my LED TV. I would suggest, if you can afford it, a projector for movies and games (perhaps a manual pull down or electric screen in front of your plasma or whatever), then a TV for your HDTV stuff. Honestly, a projector doesn't like to be turned on and off all the time - kills the bulb real fast. This is why I don't recommend it if it's all you are planning on having for watching...everything. However, for movies and games, having a projector makes me feel really, really spoiled.

I'm not tired of 3D, its just that you cant multi-task with the dark glasses on. You have to be completely focused for that 90-120 progam. Repetedly taking the glasses on and off or stopping/pausing breaks up the immersion. So I will watch a 3D movie when I know I have that 90-150 minutes available, such as typically on my days off, late night before I go to bed. So I'll get a movie like Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter and it may sit there a couple days until I see it . I got Amazing Spiderman Friday, will see it late night Monday or Tuesday.

+1 Some of my 3d movies are still pending a view for the very reason you cite, can't mult-task.

I'm thinking that adding a passive 3D set will help though.

Also not to start a debate but passive at home is almost nothign like passive at the theater... theater passive uses the same glasses but is in almost every other way like active at home.

That said I am far from tired of 3D... in fact 3D has done for me what I think high frame rate (either 48fps or 120hz) was supposed to do for 2D content: Make it more immersive, natural and realistic.

I am not a huge fan of popout crazy 3D (as I actulaly have trouble resolving it) but I love the feeling of looking through a window and seeing the action play out like a huge diorama. Far more than higher frame rate, loss of judder etc does for me, the spatial realism created by 3D is very enjoyable for me.

I appreciate the artistic value of 3D in Hugo, but I see that more like stylized special effects in a Tarrantino flick or cell shaded animation... I love unobtrusive 3D... the kind that doesn't steal the show, the kind that sits quitely there letting you enjoy the detail of the scene in a way 2D can't...

I look at it just like color in a movie - some movies make use of unnatural colorization (think the green tint in the Matrix or the orange hue to everything in Columbiana or the super saturated colors and styles we see in super stylized movies (an example evades me at the moment but I think yuou know what I am talking about). Sometimes the color is as much a part of the movie as the story is... and sometimes 3D is also... but many use natural and subtle color to help immerse you in the story and 3D can do the same...

For me depth is just a natural extension of adding more information to the movie...

Just like sound isn't necessary for a great film and neither is color (and both can arguably ruin a film if done wrong) 3D isn't necessary either, and it can be bad for a film to be sure - but when done right, it can really add a lot and when done right you don't even have to know it's there...

Just like you don't say "I Am going to see a color movie" or "I am going to see a movie with sound" I suspect 3D can easily become a natural and ubiquitous part of cinematography... a part I will not grow tired of anymore than I grow tired of sound or color.
Edited by Devedander - 12/28/12 at 9:04pm

You can explain it but the math doesn't tell the whole story and your story doesn't include all the math

I explained it in this thread a lot http://www.avsforum.com/t/1437658/keep-3d-active-or-make-switch-to-passive-3d-tv/270#post_22715108 but the long and the short of it is:

1: You do not see 540p to each eye... you see 1080p to each eye with 540 black line artifacts. This is NOT the same as 540p in deifnition nor practice (as in practice all common display types have pixel spacing far less than 1 full pixel height). This is not so much a resolution issue as it is an image artifact issue - and image artifacts tend to be far more damaging to image quality than resolution alone.

2: Image fusion doesn't work until you are far enough away you cannot resolve a full pixel height - which by definition is too far back to resolve the native 2d resolution of the panel... Thus the only time at which image fusion helps overcome the lost resolution is at a distance you couldn't have resolved higher than that resolution in the first place. The easy test for this is get close enough to your dispaly to clearly see the black lines with glasses on (EVERYONE with decent eyeiste should be able to see them at 2 or 3 feet back but definitely at 1 feet). Now what do you see? If fusion worked, your brain would "deinterlace" the images and you would see a solid wall of image with each eyes image data effectvely sliding over and covering the black line of the other eye. What you DO see is solid very definied black lines and eacy eye's image data incorrectly piling directly on top of the other eyes data (they should not as one is a pixel higher than the other). This is because your eyes are not some laser accurate computer device, they cannot tell exactly where a line of pixels is in space and the natural effect of human site is not to slide one set of lines in between the other (if this DID happen, what would be to stop your brain from sliding all the black lines together and only seeing black instead?) but rather to assume your eyes are seeing the same thing and match up what each eye sees - so balck bar to black bar and bright data line to bright data line.

So in theory your brain fuses the two images to make up for missing data (which if you think about it can't even work in theory since the missing data is parallax shifted for the other eye) but in practice your brain just ends up trying to resolve two slightly vertically offset images where it expects two vertically aligned images.

Remember even if you were using the correct math (which you aren't beucase 540p is not the same as 1080p with black lines every other line) the math doesn't tell the whole story.

Here's an easy way to conceptualize why you can't just count dots and say "same fused resolution!":

Imagine your left eye only sees the bottom 540 lines of the screen, the top 540 lines is blacked out. Now your right eye sees the top 540 lines and the bottom half of the screen is blacked out.

1080p lines right!

Obviously not... you would just see half in one eye and half in the other and it would feel very odd as your eyes try to figur eout why they don't see the same thing.

You can't just count pixels and say "that's the resolution!" Image artifacts play a huge role in image quality which is why early displays with huge pixel spacing had horrible image quality.

Try this, load up a 1080p BR and watch it while holding a comb in front of your eyes. Preferably a comb where the teeth and the spaces are roughly equal size thus the teeth block about half the pixels (the spacing showing the other half) and ask yourself - this is still higher resolution than DVD... does this look better than DVD? Most likely your answer is no.

Now try taking away the comb and quickly wave your hand in front of your eyes. You will notice your hand blocks the ENTIRE screen alternating between each eye. Now ask yourself if THAT looks better than a DVD... chances are you can still easily make out the high detail level of the 1080p BR and so it DOES look better than a reagular DVD.

This is why you can't compare how Active blocks half the temporal resolution with dynamic inteference with how passive blocks half the spatial resolution with a static artifact.
Edited by Devedander - 12/28/12 at 10:54pm

Davedander- On the Home Theater Cruise- Joe Kane proved scientifically with test patterns and high speed image video capture that the passive monitor indeed produces half res 3D. But then he also demonstrated how the new 4k passive will compensate for this and get you the full blu ray 3D ( same res as we get in active panels) 1080p x 1920. He also proved the theory of fused left right image is a myth for doubling the resolution. His guess as to why some manufacturers made the claim this was so is more associated with marketing larger numbers than it was science. Since his study is making the rounds to these manufacturers they are backing off this fusion resolution claim.

I think I read that study but must have forgotten parts of it... anyhow yes the fusion thing is something that sounds good in theory but absolutely doesn't hold up in practice.

I am holding judement on 4k passive 3D until I can see one in person... some of it adds up (as in there are enough lines that if each eye only sees half of them there is still enough to go around for full 1080p to each) but I wonder if i will come with any new cons - the bigest issue I can see is that wth smaller pixels will come thiner lines of FPR and with thiner lines it seems like it might well be easier to see "around" the retarder. As it is at 2x screen wdith you have a fairly tight sweet spot to get rid of almost all cross talk. Further back it gets more generous but if you want to recreate the theater experience you have to sit pretty close... I wonder if this will be an issue. Also I am interested in whether (at the same range) the fact that one eyes image is always 1 pixel higher than it should be relative to the other will have any long term strain or detrimental effects... and then we still arrive at the fact that no matter how small the pixels are, by default each eye experiences a vertical pixel spacing of 1 full pixel (actually more than that as it's 1 pixel plus the natural real spacing that exists between image eliments). Again these will be very small but then 4k TVs are aimed at huge size which in effect makes them bigger again... so while the black lines are half as tall relative to screen height, is that cancelled out by the fact the screen is twice as tall ie same size black lines as we see now meaning you have to sit just as far away to make them unresolvable? And then doesn't that in large destroy the benefit of higher definition?

I know I have read some peoples reviews of the 4k 3D Sony TV and they claimed the image was gorgeous 3D with no scanline artifacts...

But some part of me doesn't trust that quite so easily...

I can't get over the nagging feeling that scanlines are still going to play a roll at a range that some of us would like to sit at and that just like a TV with horirble pixel spacing in 2D even at 4K image artifacts like aliasing will be introduced due to the nature of how light perception and the human eye and brain work...

And that's all with the excpetion that you are watching 1080p on a 4k screen... that's kind of like loading a standard DVD and watching it on a current 1080p passive TV... image artifacts aside you aren't losing and resolution... but is that really that great? And when 3D 4k content comes out... well then....

I dunno... I love the pros of passive technology but the methodology of reserving one line of data for each alternating eye seems fundamentally flawed.
I really hope someone picks up on the whole passive active thing where the entire screen gets a reversing polarizing filter and we still get to wear light glasses. That will be about as close to the theater technology as it gets without dual imaging engines…