3D is Not Dead... - Page 8

I have enjoyed some 3D movies at the cinema (Avatar, etc) but am just as happy with 2D movies.

Ditto for my TV viewing : don't have a 3D TV, (50" Panasonic, 4-6 yrs old now) but don't really feel moved to buy a new TV just to get 3D ( have an oppo 3D blu-ray player, but again, didn't buy it for its 3D abiltiy.)

No doubt my next TV will be 3D, but only because I like to buy the best I can afford of anything, so will buy an upper middle, or lower-upper level TV (sounds weird?? but makes sense to me, sorry) and it will inevitably have 3D, simply because it will be in lhe range where 3D is included.

Now, am very interested in feasting my eyes on the new Panasonic OLED 4k or Ultra HD TV., and no doubt that will automatically include 3D capability (but again, not what attracts me to such a TV: it is PQ, always, and connectabillity.

But hey, whatever happened to 3D holographics?? Remember seeing a mini-version on a Japanese stand at a world expo way back in the 80s or 90s.

Now that WOULD be interesting. Beam me to the Holodeck, Scotty.!

Like always, they are a thing far in the future. Mainly, because, holograms are diffraction recordings of the light reflected off objects illuiminated with laser (coherent) light. The orignal object's images can be reconstructed by an appropriate point light source shining back thru the diffraction recording and bending the light back into the original shape of the object. There is so much information in a hologram that it currently defies practical transmission of one, let alone a continuous stream of them in real time. Add the single color nature of a hologram, not a full color hologram people expect ... and it's an almost certainlty that neither you nor I will live to see the day it arrives at CES for sale. The good news ... 3D won't be an option in such a device, it's included no charge .

I just don't care about 3D. It is not new. It has come and gone many times for 60 years. I saw Avatar in the Theater 3D. It's just as good in 2D, as is any movie with great cinematography..... Sorry 3D, YAWN. I have nothing super intellectual to say except personally I don't care about 3D, but care about: RELIABILITY, COST and FEATURES. I also think the 1080i and 720P is a good place to rest for a decade or two. Most viewing is great at these formats... 3D and 1080p have much less video content in these formats. Most video material (cable, satellite, over-air, DVD, netflix) is in the more common and accessible aforementioned 1080i/720P.... Not everyone needs to brag about having the latest or something the neighbor does not have..... sorry electronic industry. Focus on quality and *reliability* increases and cost reductions.... THAT WILL IMPRESS ME! When LCD/Plasma TV's go two or three decades with out an out of service issue, like my Parents or Grandmas Tube TV did, I will be impressed. Hey I said something intelligent!

quote "gmcjetpilot" "Most video material (cable, satellite, over-air, DVD, netflix) is in the more common and accessible aforementioned 1080i/720P.... [/quote]
Hey, I'm not fussed about 3D, and 4K affordability vis-a-vis my budget is a long way away, but let's go that one little step from 1080i to 1080p - aren't most blu-rays doing that already? (okay, okay, minimal difference, but the eyes like it!) (or is it the brain that likes it?)

IMHO, 3D as we know it is dead.

3D as we do not yet know it is coming without the major limitations that current flavors are built on and which will always prevent today's 3D from ever finding commercial acceptance and success.

The constant and minute band-aids being presented are not real improvements and serves no one's interests nor does it further the future cause of 3D; they only keep the manufacturers treading water until the next tech advancements in 3D holo projections take over.

So let's not keep flogging the dead horse and dead promotions in attempts to keep these failed technological attempts going as it does nothing but waste resources as manufacturers stuck to the failed technology try to inhibit real innovations from arriving and making it totally obvious that the old 3D concepts will never deliver acceptable 3D to the masses..

Welcome to the forum flipmom! Your 1st post has some interesting points, may of which I (and many others) will disagree with. But I was interested in your statement "3D as we do not yet know it is coming..." What do you know that many intelligent & professional people in the business who post here don't know? What 3D is coming that will "deliver acceptable 3D to the masses..."

Incidently, have you visited the 3D in the home poll? It shows over 50% either have or want 3D, while about 17% don't want it, and the rest just don't care either way.

Not exactly a scientific poll... most people clicking on that poll already have an interest in 3D or they wouldn't be on that page to begin with.

Flipmon, a man after my own heart, as per my earlier post (Post 211 above): bring on the holographic projections!

Good luck waiting that one out, guys. I'll be long dead before holographic 3D ever becomes a standard. I'm happy 3D has progressed to where we are today and surprised it's gotten here as fast as it has. The transition to stereoscopic 3D film making is a cakewalk compared to the challenges of developing the technology to shoot and edit holographic 3D. While you're waiting, I'll be very happy enjoying what I have.

Does anybody else but me remember the holographic display of a scene in a japanese village, with tiny people walking around. shown at the Japanese pavilion in the Brisbane World Expo in 1988. This was 24+ yrs ago, and was very impressive.
I have tried googling this, but have come up with only 4 or five very brief references to what to me at the time was very impressive.

I just spent 2k on a BenQ W7000 DLP for 3D only films so I guess you say that 3D is alive and well to me.

I do tend to prefer animation in 3D over most live action 3D.

My wife WAS anti 3D until she watched The Polar Express on my 8' wide scope screen in my one man black velvet room movie room.

Tom

As long as insecure people go on and on about how awesome their setup is and how much money they spent on it, 3D and any other technology will remain in the market. It is now and always has been a gimmick first and cinema-photographic technique second. Anything that gives a large percentage of the viewing audience nausea or headaches tends to stay that way. What do you expect when the movie is actually making the viewer cross their eyes for extended periods of time? I'm not saying the technology is bad, but much like the 'shakey-cam' techniques that have been fairly popular since Blair Witch, it is just a tool used by the filmmaker. Most films do NOT benefit from 3D, but some will for a certain segment of the market.

So the same then as insecure people going on and on about the negatives of 3d will keep threads such as this one alive?

No doubt,
So we now have those of us who like a little 3D as the "insecure people" who decide to dedicate cash to enjoy the HT hobby.. What next...??

Is the next post going to say those that dislike 3D and HT gear must all be rejects to society and severely disabled due to their eyes crossing and getting headaches from something as benign as 3D viewing.....?

This thread has turned into the likes of a remastered Star Wars Bluray discussion....

I'm 50/50 with 3D. I think it's neat and does add to the movies I own. Don't really care for it in theaters but love it in my own HT. Even if I thought it was "the best of the best" I would respect those that think its crap and "dead", and would hope they would be mature enough to understand my points. Beyond that I couldn't give a poop what others think about my likes or dislikes.


Cheers

There is a difference between discussing the merits and detractions of a technology and leaving it at that and inserting numerous references to the expensive equipment that you invested so much (of yourself) in.

There is also a difference in having an intelligent conversation/discussion and labeling people as "insecure"... and about rehashing the "gimmick" angle when supporters do appreciate the cinematic and/or photographic addition the medium does contribute to their entertainment choices (the title of the thread afterall is "3D is not dead").... and about making unsubstaintiated claims about "a large percentage" of people who suffer ill effects when viewing 3D content in the theater or in their home.

I get it, you don't like or appreciate what 3D has to offer. That is your opinion and you are certainly welcome to it. However, your post comes across as more than just your personnel opinion and experience. With the name calling ("insecure people") to those who have or want to adopt this form of entertainment and do enjoy it, regardless of the money they invest in pursuit of this hobby/addiction, you appear bitter about those who enjoy something you can't (at best), and rather rude about it (at worst). And this is strictly my impression, correct or not, that's how it came acros to me. I wasn't going to "bite" at your post, however I did not see any attempt at "discussing the merits and detractions of a technology and leaving it at that" as you recently eluded to. Again this is just my impression and opinion, but I am wearing my asbestos underwear just in case...
Edited by AVTrauma - 2/28/13 at 11:08pm

+1.

Well said.

It is still alive... I think it was released to earlier before enough content was out there so everyone lost there excitement due to it.

i hated 3d before,but when i got my new passive 3d tv..i am just lovin 3d... i think people who hate 3d ,experienced it in theater,which i hate.watching 3d movie in theater and home is completely different experience.i hope 3d wont die soon !!!

Me too, I can't stress enough how much more pleasant passive 3D at home has been versus any other way I've experienced 3D. It's the best.

+1

After watching a bright, passive display like the LG LM7600, my active displays just "feel wrong." It's hard to explain, because watching active 3D is not a terrible experience, it's just not as comfortable and easy on the eyes/brain as passive. And the things that bother me most about the LG (poor contrast and the jaggies caused by dark horizontal lines), hopefully, will be fixed in the Red laser. The LG is also very, very good in terms of ghosting performance - not perfect, but better than my active 3D displays. I sure hope Mark is wrong about the delay of the consumer version of the Red. I'm ready to make the leap right now.

I think I'm done with 3d. The novelty has worn off plus I've gotten a couple of migraines the next day. Not always but twice. Could be coinky dinky.

You're forgetting, this is AVS. Heck, it's the internet.

There are plenty of people that go into threads just to support whatever agenda they have that runs contrary to those who support the opposite viewpoint. In fact, I'm surprised the poll wasn't taken over by those who live almost entirely to see the downfall of 3D.

Having said that, I personally don't have a set preference either way. I like some stuff in 3D (though I only view stuff in 3D if I feel it will really benefit from it) and if I get around to purchasing a larger main TV, I'll likely make sure it's 3D just to have the option.

Agreed, it's nice to have the 3D option. I just watched the Top Gun conversion and it blew me away, the conversion technology is now capable of a totally comfortable, realistic effect and I'm excited about the possibility of seeing conversions of other classics. "Aliens" gets my vote for the next '80s classic 3D re-release.

First of all you are considerably ignorant of the science of 3D. Comparing stereography to holography is like comparing automobiles to airplanes when talking about options in transportation. Neither obsoletes the other. Each has it's own advantages and disadvantages.

Additionally, those who are glib on the subject of 3D image presentation need to wake up and realize that holography is indeed here today and has been around for some time. But, just as we find an automobile unsuited for flying around the globe, so do we find that holography is unsuited for presentation of stories edited in a theatrical setting. That is an art that is not yet well developed but the science of holography is mature enough to be put into a practical use now. Currently the most popular artistic uses of holography is in engineering and design as well as in advertising. As I said, it's use in the art of story telling or theatrical presentation has yet to be embraced by the artist, but the science and technology is indeed here and you can find many many examples on display if you just take some time to look.

There is even a special trade show where you can attend and see the latest developments and how the industry is being embraced. However, I have seen a few companies at every CES show for the past 10 years show off one or more holographic systems.

Here is just one example of a very large holographic projector being demonstrated at a show:

If you take the time to do some searching on "Holographic projection you will fine many designs of the technology, similar to what one can find today in stereographic systems like flat panel active glasses, passive glasses, projection, and autostereoscopic glasses free systems.

The reality is that stereography is the better suited technology to present a stage like performance story to an audience, than 3D holography now. However, while the science and technology is here today, the art of how to use it in theatrical presentation is not quite mature enough to challenge stereography at this time. Give the artists time to figure out how to make use of halography, then get the funding to build a theater to present the story and then maybe a guy like John Cameron will create a story like Avatar that uses 3D halography. Give Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo, some time and maybe they will engineer a 3D halographic game that you can play and interact with.

Some early efforts in 3D hologram games:

Of course if you really want 3D halography now and for cheap- get this accessory for your iphone:

3D never impressed me and I never found it worth the extra money. But thats cause most 3D movies use cheap gimmicks like you get when you go to the amusement park or something, very few movies have ever used 3D to its full potential. Then there is the extra cost, extra $5-$15 for movies, the glasses and if you have family that adds up really quick.

Now I know I question why and how is succeded. Well thats simple.. Look who is in charge of marketing.. Sony. They have been forcing it down our throats, kinda like how they did Bluray. It's what Sony is good at, so people buy it and fall for it and then other companies join the bandwagon and do the same. So now go out look at your players and your TV's most of them is 3D compitable. Crazy huh??

Opps: Almost forgot a force feed.. Disney, and their "$10 off bluray purchase, for 4 disc 3D version only" Which then normally made that as cheap as the 2 disc version.

Oh well.. Just proves marketing and telling the consumer what they want = Success..

Ever walk into a best buy and ask for help on a TV.. Usually they point you to the 3D TV's with some speech on how it's future proof and yadda yah. And if you are going in their clueless you will fall for it.

Anyway, Do I think 3D is dead? Sadly Nope. Do i think it's going to fade like all fads? Yes.

Alot of the pro's that came with 3D TV's lead to alot of innovation with films, but again it's something that wasnt for everyone. Overall I dunno... just something that i would love to call dead and buried but I don't think it ever will be. Prices have dropped drasticly, technology is improving, companies are still trying to force us into it.. I may fade but will never be dead.

^^^Kreepy,
Do you really feel companies are forcing products down our throats? Marketing isn't there to force us to buy something, its there to compell us. I've never felt forced to buy anything besides gas and essentials to "survive"....
I agree with a few of your points and respect them all yet my feelings on the 3D aspect isn't that it's being forced on "us," rather many manufacturers are being "forced" to implement it into their TVs to compete - for example if the TV doesn't have it (or the manufacturer doesnt offer it) someone may look elsewhere etc. Now sure, most higher end TVs have 3D as standard equipment yet that's not forcing it on us. One still has the option to use it or not. 3D isn't for everyone thus no company is going to market it as you must use it to watch this TV. That would be a guaranteed loss on their part.

I've purchased three new displays since 3D was mainstream. Only one is 3D capable. No one forced it on me. I picked the plasma with the PQ and capabilities that I wanted and it just so happened 3D was included. I didnt have to use it.. I went out and had to purchase glasses and the few 3D BDs that I own - of which all came with the 2D version....

I think what gets many folks riled up is the fact they have to pay more to get 3D. Yes, they are forced to pay more for it... That's the same for any technology or new gimmick etc. But then again, its still a choice, pay or don't pay - anyone can live without it.

Cheers

i was at ces, 3d display lg was amazing, it was ultra 3d IMO. 100 screens on a wall....

Please read what I emailed to Cineworldafter seeing The great and powerful oz in 3d last night.

Last night my partner and I visited Cineworld at Parkhead in Glasgow to see The great and powerful oz in 3d. Being a huge 3D fan with my own 3d projector and Bluray system at home I was looking forwards to what has been classed as the best 3d movie since Hugo. I was greatly dissapointed as the crosstalk in cinema 2 spoiled the whole film. The screen was filthy with huge vertical streaks running through it. Never have I had such a poor viewing experiance. Do these screens ever get checked? I noted it was projected through the projection window possibly altering polarization. Several people commented "The 3d was rubbish" after the film. I have never had a problem at Vue in Hamilton or the Showcase in Coatbridge. No wonder 3d takings are down. My partner also said it spoiled the whole film. I can guarantee at least half who attended last night would be very dissapointed even if they're not as critical as me. I'll stick to Vue in the future. I will forward this to Walt Disney and the Avforums to see if it is a common occurrence.


I love 3d on my Optoma HD33 and 120" screen but they still need to put them in the cimema to make money first! - If they get away with shoddy presentations like this we can all say goodbye to 3d in the future!!!! Has anyone else had big problems in a cinema?

I think a TV that lasts that long is a thing of the past, and not necessarily all a bad thing. To make these new HDTVS affordable to the masses and the company still make money, the TVs are engineered to last only so long. I bet new TVs would cost significantly more money if they were built to last 30 years like they used to when we grew up. But would you want it to?

I understand what you're saying. I waited until my 12 year old Toshibs 32" CRT TV died in 2011 before I shopped for a HDTV. But twenty years ago technology didn't move nearly as fast as it does now. In the last 20 years, we've seen HDTV arrive, first as lower resolution, then progress to 1080p. We now have LCD technology, and the start of OLED and someday, 4K. I agree, 3D is a marketing ploy to get people who already have an older (5 year?) HDTV and have to have the latest Gee Wiz technology, to upgrade. "Smart TVs are another thing we are being told we need to run out and get. My point is some of the bells and whistles are just added junk, but sometimes the combination of a few new features makes looking into a new TV worth it. When the technology changes to affordable OLED or 4K, another reason to shop. If you spent say 30% more on a 720p with no HDMI a few years ago, but you knew it would last another 20 years, wouldn't you be a little tempted to upgrade before it quit working? Or would you admire the nice picture and be satisfied you wouldn't have to replace it for a while? What if you had a huge, 100lb, 720p Sony CRT XBR analog TVs taking up a big chunk of your family room real estate, but it was working just fine. Wouldn't you be tempted to walk into Best Buy to peek at something just a little newer?