3D is Not Dead... - Page 7

Hey Tex - you make some valid points. Howvever, you also said this "what's off the focus point of the screen is out of focus, even moreso than with a 2d rendering." So you answered your own question. It as NOTHING to do with the 'technology' - it's the way the directors and film editors make the movie, the don't want us to see the whole screen clearly. Ever been to an 'Imax' show? tell me, can your eyes 'focus' on the ENTIRE screen? No it can't, your eyes can only focus on what you are specifically looking at. Even in real life, if I'm standing feet away from you, speaking to you and you are looking directly at me, you see the background (cars , signposts building if outside, furniture, cupboards, walls, pictures if inside) but since you're not focusing on those items it will be blurry. Your argument on 3D is laughable. I don't think I (or you) could handle a viewing on a large screen where everything is in constant perfect focus, and if it were, you wouldn't notice it anyway.

BTW - watched Avatar 3D on my Oppo 103 plugged directly into my new Panny VT50 65" screen. It was a sight to behold and I'm a convert now. I agree it will be better when when we can not use glasses, but I could be dead before that happens so I"ll take what I can get now and enjoy it very much, thank

Seems to me a lot of people misunderstand how 3D works on today's TVs, and why it will remain a feature on tomorrow's TVs. Because 3D is a software function (as is streaming), it is easy and inexpensive to implement in HDTVs (the cost of glasses aside), to the point where no manufacturer wants to be seen as a technology laggard by not including it in their (at least) higher-end products. (Also, because the 3D experience is meant to be immersive, it is a natural fit with larger TVs in any case.) Future 4K and OLED displays will certainly include 3D functionality, and the 3D algorithms will continually be tweaked as well, so 3D performance will get ever better as time goes on.
Edited by akakpdx - 1/27/13 at 12:14pm

As far as equipment purchasing, it goes from individual to individual. Me personally, I cant understand why people are so critical or analytical about equipment decisions when it comes to 3D. It seems like someone is uneducated when going out of the way to avoid 3D as an equipment option. No offense. If its a decent set, likely, its coming with 3D. Whether you use it or not I think is irrelevant when talking overall quality of a set.

Here is my situation. (I read the post about the extra $100 for the tv and $100 for BD player) I use a PS3, owned 3 of them...and thats the only BD player I ever considered owning. Yeah, I know its primarily for gaming but I purchased for duality of gaming and BD. So that was never a factor in my costs as I have owned a PS3 virtually since they were launched. Now...as far as a set. I just purchased a new TV 2 weeks ago. I saw some good 2D sets in my price range. The thing I went for was not features though. I didnt care if it was a smart TV...because I have a PS3. I did want 3D but it wasnt my deciding factor. My main factor was PQ, above anything else, with 3D and inputs coming in next. I dont remember seeing a set that was ranked in the top 10 in PQ that DIDNT have 3D. My point is, I didnt have to go 1 inch out of the way to get 3D. I am not gonna get a crap tv just because its 3D, by the same token, if a tv is in my price range that murders all comparable sets as far as PQ but doesnt have 3D, show me that set.

Lastly, whether its dead or not I dont really care. I used Beta and enjoyed it. I have HD-DVD and DVHS and still enjoy them. I enjoy some 3D. I am the type of person who enjoys things for what they are and not what people expect them to be.
Edited by synistr - 1/27/13 at 5:55pm

I'm 74, and remember when 3D was first introduced during the previous century. First-time fad, 1952-1955, then some films, 1964-1980, and another brief resurgence around 1985. Now the present 21st century permutation which like earlier 3D efforts appears to be quietly fading.

As before, the present 3D technology requires cumbersome glasses to achieve the effect that seems no better than what I first saw 60 years ago. I bought a LG 50PZ 950 early last year. I wear glasses to correct lifetime myopic astigmatism, so wearing a second set of glasses is uncomfortable.

As TV resolution improves I daresay the effect will be far more impressive and immersive than the artificial 3D utilized for these past 60 years. So this century's 3D will soon be a passé technology-again!
Edited by n9949y - 1/27/13 at 7:40pm

3D is a wonderful option. Like so many here, I love it and predict a wonderful future. Bought a set with ability with all kinds of options and ability to read thumb drives, love it. But like sparrows, 3d content continues to proliferate quietly without much notice. And anyone can do their own productions with fancy duel HD cameras as cheap as $400 or as expensive as $230,000.. But there are many techies out there that with a little Flash or 3D Studio Max (Autodesk 3ds max) should be encouraged and given the tools to make all sorts of 3D content. And what about all the engineering guys with Visual Basic or Gambas who can make all sorts of 3D stills but can't yet assemble that content. Tools to merge and compress them into files for 3D TV has been terribly slow to appear. So maybe it's time for the big boys to open Punker Otto's trunk just a little bit and let the 3D sun shine out just a little

I create my own 3D videos using a trio of 3D camcorders and accessories. I edit with Edius 6.5 and Vegas Pro 12, then burn to Blu-ray 3D. I was tired of doing just HD production, and the step up to 3D has given me a new burst of energy and enthusiasm for shooting again. The tools for doing this affordably have been slow to come to market, but even today someone who wants to produce their own relatively high quality 3D has several options. There's even a program for under $100 that edits 3D, with more being announced all the time. It's certainly not a millionaires-only club. Every few months I've seen progress in the development of 3D production tools. When the ability to produce 3D trickles down to this level, it's hard not to be optimistic about its future.

Not to do self promotion, but we have been fighting this argument for several months now and it's always the same argument: there is no content, nothing to watch, blah blah blah.... We already know that people love 3D in movie theaters. We also know that people love to watch TV: movies and sports and home. So, I do not understand the argument that 3D is going away. How so? With over 200 movie titles available in 3D? Comcast has a couple dozen 3D programs on demand, some of them are HBO, Starz, and Showtime programs. Sure, 3D is not going to be an always-on feature. It's a piece of entertainment.

My analogy is home theater surround sound. Many people have it setup in their living rooms. Do they always turn it on? Of course, not! Why would you need full surround sound to watch news or silly TV shows? You only turn it on to watch blockbuster movies or major sporting events. It's an entertainment enhancer. Same this is 3D.

I agree that 3D alone is not enough to motivate people to upgrade their TV's and this is why the adoption of 3D at home has slowed down. Again, sorry for the self-promotion, but we are actually trying to bridge that gap with our new technology. Active Anaglyph technology is the answer. Our new product is called 3D Striker www.facebook.com/3Dstriker. Unlike those cheap anaglyph converters, it allows to watch full color 3D on regular 60Hz TV's.

Hit me up if you'd like to know more or better yet, like our FB page.

3D is one of the reasons why I upgraded this year. I was still pretty happy with my 720P sets, one 50" plasma, and one 37" LCD. But I saw 3D

In my opinion Passive 3D is the the best option at this point. Passive 3D was THE selling point decision for my most recent TV purchase last month. Granted you lose a bit of definition (barely noticeable difference to me... the images are flickering back and forth between left and right image so fast, your mind still sees the 1080p image). But all the 3D bluray content I've seen on my LG TV has been just as clear and sometimes clearer than the regular BD movie version. Passive 3D is easier for the TV to process because there's less data. From what I've seen compared to Sony, Panny's and Samsung, there is less shifting/judder. Passive just seems easier on the eyes as well. This may all be different though based on individual preference and tolerance. But I can't help but wonder if one reason why we see 3D falling off the big media events like CES (aside from the fact it's been around awhile) is that the active systems haven't really taken off. LG continued to show off it's passive 3D, possibly because it's finding Passive 3D IS a big selling point for them. It was for me.

Different people obviously have different expectations about what they would consider quality 3D content. Some want pictures to pop off the screen, some simply want a window into another world. I prefer a mixed bag. Drama and psychological thrillers should be mostly window depth with a few opportunities for some pop-outs strategically placed throughout. But I'd love to see Sci-Fi, Comedy, Adventure, and most "kids" movies produced with more "in-front" content with occasional all the way to your face action. I mean why wouldn't you want Nemo to practically go down your throat when he's getting sucked down the toilet drain? May be gimmicky to some, but in these genres I think it fits right in. There's no denying depth to scenic vistas can be fascinating, but why not bring some of that scene right off the panel into the room on the sides and bottom?

Maybe the big guns invested too much in the Active 3D technology and aren't seeing a big windfall from it because passive, I think for the majority, still rules from a watch-ability standpoint. Oh and the glasses are cheaper, and often can be free either via the TV Sale, or the free ones you get at the movies.

It's not 3D though it's a stereogram. and thus an artificial construct that gives you a headache after long periods of viewing. Also crosstalk is STILL an issue (I still saw crosstalk during The Hobbit at 48fps). Until they come up with a system that allows you some felxibility in looking around objects (So if you move your head to either side it moves ever so slightly around objects like in real life) it will always be just a gimmick (even if it sticks around for many years). Glasses or not.

Call me when they have something more akin to high definition 'opaque' (as in appearing non-transparent) color holography.

^ A solid color hologram would, of course, be ideal Dick, and has always been my desire, and just for the reason you mention about 'looking around' objects. I used to own a small company selling holograms back in the 70s. Alas, I'd venture I'll be gone before that happens in commercial TV, if ever, esp the solid part. However, I think you ought to check out the latest 3D tech as implemented in say, an 240Hz LG passive set. Sitting anywhere around the optimal vertical point, as in a couch or chairs grouped around the set, there simply is NO crosstalk - none whatsoever. I can honestly tell you I've never even seen crosstalk in any 3D movie I've watched so far - zero. As for headaches, I'm sure the crosstalk plays a part for those experiencing it on other sets, as well as the heavy, cumbersome headgear if active 3D is used for viewing. The active sets may be improving, but there are basic limitations there, i.e., batteries, circuitry, flickering shutters in front of each eye, etc., that contribute to the suffering. On the other hand, the 6 pairs of passive glasses that came with my 60LM7200 weigh in at a massive 13.6 grams each. Wearing them is virtually a unnoticed experience, aside from the slight (less than normal sunglasses) dimming looking at non-TV things around the room (if lights are on or daytime). The 3D switches the TV to a brighter mode when 3D is detected, so the screen images appear at full normal brightness in 1080p.

While the effect is not a hologram, it's darn realistic. And who is moving their head around like Stevie Wonder anyway while watching movies lol? I just sit there and watch, transfixed by the beauty of it all.

As I'm a bit worn around the edges, I'm reminded of a RS song from my generation...

No, you can't always get what you want
But if you try sometime, you just might find you get what you need
And I went down to the demonstration
To get my fair shares of abuse
Singing, "We're gonna vent our frustration
And if we don't, we don't blow a 50-amp fuse", yeah
And no, you can't always get what you want
No, you can't always get what you want
Well, no, you can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you just might find
You get what you need, baby

The $1000 investment in our 47" LM7600 I consider well worth it. With a 2 and a 6 year old, they'll get plenty of opportunity to see some spectacular 3D flicks. I plan to use it as a treat, and occasionally shout out, "3D Movie time!" And fully expect that they will come running until they get a bit older and think dear old dad's 3d movie night shucks compared to their own personal electronic devices.

To be fair, a business is there to make money. We often find it distasteful that we get charged whatever the vendor thinks they can get away with but we'd do the same if we were selling our car or house - we'd take the best we could get. I think it's morally more questionable when we don't have a choice e.g. train fares for commuting to work or medical treatment, then there is a moral argument to say pricing should be socially responsible.

Pricing new technology at a higher rate than old has another purpose. It allows older technology to phase out. If new tech came in at the price of old tech, the old tech would get dumped so quickly there would be loads of redundant stock and businesses would lose a packet. That would make them nervous about stocking old tech in any quantity making it harder to get hold of.

Also, by charging a premium for new tech for early adopters who absolutely must have the latest thing, it generates cash to put into R&D for the next new products to be developed. By the time new tech becomes mainstream, pricing competition makes the profits smaller and it's harder to make extra cash for R&D.as well as giving shareholders an income.

It's a capitalist business system that's evolved over time. Personally speaking I won't pay the premium for the latest thing, especially if I think it's a bit of a gimmick, but bless all those impatient souls that do because they subsidise the rest of us...

I think it's got its got its place for things like footy and movies but it could be better and its not really compatible with casual viewing of most programmes. Concern over the cost of media is not an issue if you're prepared to wait for the broadcasters to come up to speed with transmitted 3D programming.

The only DVD's I buy are 3D Blu's .. enough said! Love my 3D:D

This, by the way, just proves that there is a high demand for 3D. Which means it is absolutely not dead.

With just about 30 3D titles in my library, I have to admit I have only paid about $25.00 for about 6 titles, and those are the mostly the Disney animation movies (Lion King, Nemo, etc). A few have been about $22.00 (Prometheus, Titanic, Pirates 4). All the rest have been $20.00 or less, some times a lot less. Fry's currently has about 25 titles on sale for $12.99, and Best Buy will price match!

I don't mind that there can be a 2D version Blu ray/DVD version included, since the DVD copy allows the movie to be viewed elsewhere by the kids when I'm watching something I want to watch on the "big screen" (think SuperBowl)!

You don't have to spend boatloads of cash to get many titles... pre-order can save you for some new titles when "instant gratification" and the need to add a title ASAP to your collection out weighs the savings obtained by waiting a bit. (I am still waiting to get an "extended version" of Avatar, since I won't pay any money for the theatrical release! )

Those who wish 3D would disappear, view it as a gimmick and fad... they are entitled to their opinion, just like the members of "The Flat Earth Society". I don't believe 3D will do anything but get better and better as time goes on. It's unfortunate that a small percentage of the posters suffer when viewing 3D material (some in the theater, so they are understandably reluctant to try the home theater senerio... but some also suffer in the home setting too). I'm envious of those who have the PJ set ups with screen sizes 100+, since most prefer the 3D in their own home (as more "emersive") than the theatrical experience the rest of us experience. I especially enjoy reading the posts from former 3D haters who have now become enthusiastic converts and supporters!

But the fact remains, it is still just an option for consumers, take it or leave it / love it or hate it. The fact also remains, it is no where near "dead"!

Love your arguments. 75% of the people experience no problem viewing 3D. If I remember right, less than 3% of people cannot see 3D at all. Nobody is forced to upgrade. 3D is becoming a standard new feature, just like the stereo sound was at some point.

Perfectly well said, Merlin;)

I still think for 3D to really take off, Netflix and Cable providers have to start offering it. The AVS boards are mostly enthusiasts who love this stuff. The average person's opinion is not likely represented here (we're all collectively "speaking to the choir") . To keep sales high after a lot of people have already bought an HDTV in the last few years, or push folks on the fence, movie and gear makers had to come up with something that people could really see, and 3D is it.

I'd like to see more of a range of 3D movies produced- ie. drama's,thriller's, sports, etc.,...Not just animated fairly tales, cartoons, science fiction, fantasies and mythology, but stories and genre's that we're not used to experiencing in this manner..............

I really dig 3D stuff. At first I really did'nt care, thought it was over-inflated, I never experienced any 3D features. Now that I have in-home capable 3D gear I'm very impressed. Looking forward to more new features. Also excited to install a 3D capable projector

I think we are seeing a lot of animations because they are easier to turn out in 3D and at little extra cost. CGI animations are effectively in 3d to start with so it's just a question of re-outputting them in another format.
Sport looks like it might be easier to shoot in 3d. It looks like you can get away with a lot of wider static shots and the action is ehhanced by the 3d rather than kinky camera angles. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who directs sports in 3d.
I think we'll see problems with lower budget movies and tv programmes because the budget won't pay for the skills and time necessary to do 3d justice. I think a badly made 3d programme will look worse than a badly made 2d programme. The example I would give is early colour - it was a novelty but the skills, knowledge and budgets were not there in smaller productions to use it effectively.

I think "Life of Pi" is the movie that brings 3D on a whole new level. We need more good 3D movies like this.

And directors have just begun to explore the possibilities. Now that the likes of James Cameraon, Ang Lee and Martin Scorsese have blazed the trail for others (and in the process legitimized 3D more) we'll start to have greater variety in 3D productions. For me, the truly moving moments in Avatar were quiet scenes between Jake and Neytiri. IMO, those scenes benefited as much from 3D as the larger scale action sequences. Scorsese's Hugo was more engaging because of the use of 3D, too. LIfe of Pi might never have been made as a 2D only film.

This is just the beginning for 3D. It will become just one more tool in a filmmaker's kit, and the best is yet to come.

What I really hate is that theaters dont do justice to how good 3D is.

The first time I put Ice age 3 on my computer in my samsung monitor everything ive seen so far pale in comparison. What made me mad is that I saw this movie in Imax 3d and the 3D was meh but on my computer was incredible.

Then I play my first game in 3D, Mass effect 3. When I saw it I was blown away cause it look so different and soo good. After I saw it any game that is like an adventure game I play it with 3D is amazing.

Yes, I agree 1000%, I cannot believe how good 3D looks at home, on a well-calibrated screen. Batman Arkham City on my HTPC through my 55" 3D set is the best-looking 3D art I've had the pleasure to interact with - simply amazing you can have such an immersive experience in one's own home. Even Avatar's 3D was more impressive than the IMAX presentation (except for the glow-in-the-dark flowers scene, that was amazing on a huge screen).

Ideally, some commercial theaters should be better than home theaters, but it doesn't work out that way 99% of the time. Only in the very best theaters, when they're properly maintained, and the projectors are calibrated accurately, does it look better than it does in a good home theater. At least that's what I'm told. In fact, though, I've never seen a commercial theater, including Imax, that looks as good as my home theater. One, there's too much light in a commercial theater. There has to be, to conform to the law - can't have people killing themselves when they go for popcorn. Two, the screens are usually flawed by stains, tears, seams or puckers. Three, the contrast of most commercial theaters is low and black level is high, because of the inherent limitations of those light canons and the high ambient light. Four, personal comfort (and convenience) is better at home than in a commercial theater - no sticky floors, rude patrons and outrageous concession prices. I can pick my own seat at home, and it's almost always in a better spot for picture and sound quality. I can set the volume level to my liking. I can pause the show any time I want to.

The only reason for going to a commercial theater (other than the very highest caliber venues that take the time to do everything right) is the "community" of it, or as a date activity. You won't hear how a crowd reacts and feel like you're a part of that. That's important, but as far as I'm concerned the negatives outweigh the positives of commercial theaters by such a huge margin that it's almost never worth it. I used to go to the movies several times a week, year round. Not any more, and I'm loving it. 3D has only reinforced those feelings. Every 3D film I've seen in both places has looked better in my cozy home theater than it has in a commercial theater.

I like 3D but would not want to watch it all the time. (The View).

Big time, same here.


Yikes! Me either. My wife watches The View occasionally.

Good one.

I like my 55 inch 3d Panasonic plasma 3d looks great I just watched the winter x games and it was amazing. I wish the super bowl were in 3d along with all my favorite sports like formula1, baseball, and basketball etc.

Agreed! Superbowl in 3D would be awesome!

Again... Agreed. 3D done right is great. Unfortunately there are too many movie companies who want to make cheap 3D dollars with crappy movies.