or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › 4 Reasons the 3D TV Movement is Already Dead
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

4 Reasons the 3D TV Movement is Already Dead - Page 6

post #151 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCD View Post

Although I popped for two pair of the LG active glasses ($75.00 ea) I rarely use them, and I'll tell you why.....I simply refuse to pay a $5 to $10 premium for a 3-D Blu Ray. In my humble opinion, the price of a Blu Ray is already obscene. I purchase quite a few of them as I enjoy having a large library of movies on hand, and the price difference adds up.

Last Tuesday I picked up the new Star Trek, not counting DVD I had 3 choices. The 3-D version was $35, the non 3-D was $28. To me, it's just not worth it for the 2 or 3 scenes of space debris or whatever coming at me from the screen.

So perhaps I'm just cheap wink.gif, but I do have almost 300 Blu Rays and that would add up to quite the premium if they were all 3-D. Of course I'm just extrapolating numbers as there probably aren't even 300 3-D movies released yet, but you get my point.

Your cheapness is such an outlier, the industry can't hope to accommodate you. You actually own Blu Rays, but you won't pay a bit extra for 3-D. You have $6000 or so worth of movies, perhaps 50 of them should be owned in 3-D, which is about $350 extra. It's hard to price a product for someone who won't just accept that small 5% increment to your collection cost. I'm not judging you, I'm just saying it's hard to price for people like you with "irrational" requirements.

 

As I stated above, I suspect the problem lies in the fact that he owns only 2 glasses.  This means that any movie he buys are movies that are effectively good for only watching 2 people at a time and I would myself would be hesitant to buy a movie under that predicate.  If he had more glasses (and purchased them better), things might change.

 

Thanks for your assessment on ST-OOD.  I'm totally buying it now.

 

And when I futilely searched, both Netflix and Redbox were "considering" the 3D thing.  I think it's never going to happen, though IIRC someone here said they saw a single title on Netflix.  Pathetic all around.  I was planning on dumping HBO after The Newsroom Season 2 dries up, but I am loathe to give up one of 2 sources for 3D that I have: Starz & HBO, as limited as they are.

post #152 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post

In Titanic, I was actually happy he chose to crop it down for the 3D bluray, becuase he's right, it does make the 3D better.

 

Oh, I'm not complaining at all---I'm *very* glad he's using the available vertical space for 3D.  He's absolutely right.  I'm just pointing out that if you value the widescreen look for 2D (for any movie) you might not have it on the 3DBD version by turning off 3D on your set.  And with Avatar, you definitely won't---not that it's a matter of much concern to most.

post #153 of 398

By the way guys, if what you want are movies (of any type), then use camelcamelcamel.com (or it's associated browser plug-in) and set a price watch for it on Amazon (or use camelbuy.com for bestbuy).  Check the prices for dirt cheap (it'll show up used or new and discounted severely eventually and you'll be notified by email when it hits your sweet spot).  And used movies almost always are perfectly good forever.  I routinely throw out the case anyway and wish I had the option to save even 10 cents by ordering a title without it.

post #154 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Your cheapness is such an outlier, the industry can't hope to accommodate you. You actually own Blu Rays, but you won't pay a bit extra for 3-D. You have $6000 or so worth of movies, perhaps 50 of them should be owned in 3-D, which is about $350 extra. It's hard to price a product for someone who won't just accept that small 5% increment to your collection cost. I'm not judging you, I'm just saying it's hard to price for people like you with "irrational" requirements.

Incidentally, the opening scene to Star Trek: Into Darkness had the best 3-D of the summer (including Iron Man, Pacific Rim and Superman... oddly, I saw them all in 3-D due to social groups and showtimes).
The average non-enthusiast doesn't buy movies much if at all, they rent them. And they get nickel-and-dimed by services like Vudu, which charge more for 720p and then still more for 1080p... Redbox, sadly, has no 3-D.

That's an interesting observation. I do believe the industry is finding ways around "people like me" however. Have you noticed the recent marketing / bundling lately? If there is a 3-D version, I see them being sold with 3-D, Non-3-D, DVD, and digital copy. That version was the $35.00 one at Wally. Then comes the Blu Ray, DVD, and digital version for $28 or so. Nowhere did I see a plain Blu Ray disc being sold alone. EDIT: STAR TREK OOD I am referring to.

I just picked up WWZ and it was $21 at my local Wally for the Blu Ray + digital version.

Look at it another way..by not getting the 3-D version, every 4 I purchase "saves" me enough that the 5th one is free.

So, to move on Rogo, I did not take your comments personally at all, I understand exactly what you were saying. Maybe "cheap" was the wrong word. Although not "wealthy" by any stretch of the imagination, I could easily purchase every 3-D Blu Ray ever released and as many glasses as I felt I needed, but 3-D on a puny 60" plasma just doesn't really do it for me. I am very much like you, in regards to wanting 100" plus in my home.

Having only 2 pairs of glasses was a good point (from another poster) but doesn't really apply. I live alone in a small (but cozy) condo (she got the houses-I'm fine with that), divorced, kids grown up, work 6-7 days a week etc. Don't entertain too much and usually only one of my sons will come up for a Saturday evening and stay over.

I also have Netflix, but as we all know, they are not the best for first run movies and I rarely watch TV shows.

I very much enjoy re-watching movies from my library though. That alone makes me different I suppose.

Your comments about "the best 3-D" (Star Trek) are not pertinent to me, as with very rare exceptions I no longer enjoy the theatre experience. We all know the reasons, no need to waste space going in to them here, but there is NO comparison between what you have at home and an Imax screen for example.

So maybe to re-phrase, I just don't see the "value" in home 3-D and thus refuse to pay extra for it? I have no complaints with the 3-D output on my 6700 by the way, looks fine to me. I'm not sure how much "better" it would look on a 5k set, but I probably couldn't see much difference.

Pete
post #155 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post

In Titanic, I was actually happy he chose to crop it down for the 3D bluray, becuase he's right, it does make the 3D better.

Oh, I'm not complaining at all---I'm *very* glad he's using the available vertical space for 3D.  He's absolutely right.  I'm just pointing out that if you value the widescreen look for 2D (for any movie) you might not have it on the 3DBD version by turning off 3D on your set.  And with Avatar, you definitely won't---not that it's a matter of much concern to most.

I didn't think you were. I was rather pointing out one of the only instances I was happy for the *crop* job. I think you are right on more than just the widescreen aspect as I think the 3D blurays sometimes have different color schemes applied to them as well as different versions of the video (different noise filters etc).
post #156 of 398
Classic 3d films like Dial M for Murder, and Creature from the Black Lagoon, are fun.

I have a 40 in Sony, use Blick 3d glasses, and it looks
great.

Am sure House of Wax, from 1953 will be excellent too...street date is Oct. 1st....hope a local theater will run it for Halloween so it can be seen on the big screen.
post #157 of 398
Pete, noted and thumbs upped.
post #158 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Pete, noted and thumbs upped.

Likewise wink.gif

You have some very good insights when it comes to this industry and I read a lot of your posts. The trick is to read your posts carefully as on the surface they may sometimes appear to be abrasive, but upon further reading you are just stating a fact or opinion. Now, that's not to say you cant give as good as you get sometimes smile.gif

Anyway, your original reply to me caused me to think and reply the way I did.

Thanks for taking the time to read it.

Pete
post #159 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCD View Post

Likewise wink.gif

You have some very good insights when it comes to this industry and I read a lot of your posts. The trick is to read your posts carefully as on the surface they may sometimes appear to be abrasive, but upon further reading you are just stating a fact or opinion. Now, that's not to say you cant give as good as you get sometimes smile.gif

Anyway, your original reply to me caused me to think and reply the way I did.

Thanks for taking the time to read it.

It's hard to convey tone online, but I think the above is pretty fair.

You're welcome and thanks as well.
post #160 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

It's not clear whether it's actively "losing" money because abroad, they continue to deny people the choice, but look at the facts from where choice is provided:

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/3ds-terrible-summer-continues-wolverine-turbo-hit-lows-152933255.html

  • Turbo hit a record low, with 25% of the gross from 3-D. The "gross" is total dollars, not ticket sales. Since 3-D tickets are 25-40% more expensive, that masks how badly the format is doing. For Turbo, it means less than 20% of the tickets were bought for 3-D.
  • Wolverine was at 30% of gross. That's the worst showing ever for an action film,
  • Prior to those records, the worst 3-D grosses ever were Monsters U. (31%) and World War Z (34%). Both of those also this year! If you're seeing a trend, it's that 3-D ticket sales are absolutely collapsing in the United States. There is no other way to spin it.
  • The pre-2013 records were Captain America (40%) and Brave (34%). Even in those cases, you are basically seeing 1/4 to 1/3 of tickets sold in 3-D. Today, when a movie like Pacific Rim has a 3-D gross around 50%, that means 6 in 10 people chose to not see it in 3-D.

The "good news" for the format is that in Russia, China and elsewhere, it can still represent 80-90% of the gross. Of course, when you can't see the movie in 2-D, this should be no surprise. Once choice is offered, consumers select the 2-D either slightly or overwhelmingly.

What you can see here, is that even two years ago, 3-D started to cost the studios and theaters money. Wait, what?

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2011/09/who_killed_3d.single.html

Yes, it's true. If you keep reserving theaters for 3-D, charge more for tickets, but sell fewer of them, you end up grossing less per theater. And that's a cost you never recoup since an empty seat becomes worthless the instant the movie begins. Given that there were concerns in 2011 that this phenomenon was occurring, imagine how much worse it must be now.

So why do you see all these 3-D releases then? It's simple. In the U.S., they fix the problem by removing 3-D screens so as to minimize the damage. It doesn't eliminate the damage because if the attach rate of 3-D is low enough, there is still some lost profit potential. But then, overseas, you don't give people a choice and you charge them a surcharge. Hollywood makes more money (in many cases) from overseas box than domestic and many other cases relies on it to mitigate risk. This allows disasters like Battleship to avoid sinking studios and formulaic, made-for-global fluff like Pacific Rim to get produced at all. Sell 20 million tickets in the U.S. at $10 and then sell another 20 million overseas for $9 instead of $7 because you made the move in 3-D and in Hollywood math, you might have just saved your job.

The data you posted doesn't show any losses for 3D. For example, it a theater shows a movie in 3 theaters, each of which seats say 100 people. One shows a 3D version and the others show a 2D. Suppose 50 see the 3D version and 150 see the 2D. You say, 75% of the people chose the 2D version, so the theater lost money. How exactly did they lose money? What if they had the 2D version in all 3 theaters and they had 200 people watch it in the 3 theaters instead. Would the theater have made any more revenue? No, they would have made less. In order to show they lost money, you would to have people who didn't see any movie because of the 3D offering. If they chose to see the 2D version instead, the theater didn't really lose money, they just didn't make as much as they would have if more people opted for the 3D version.
post #161 of 398

You make a good point, and continuing I suppose it breaks down to how profitable any particular theater room is and to what degree it can be filled.  That's not data we can easily get either way.

post #162 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post

The data you posted doesn't show any losses for 3D. For example, it a theater shows a movie in 3 theaters, each of which seats say 100 people. One shows a 3D version and the others show a 2D. Suppose 50 see the 3D version and 150 see the 2D. You say, 75% of the people chose the 2D version, so the theater lost money. How exactly did they lose money? What if they had the 2D version in all 3 theaters and they had 200 people watch it in the 3 theaters instead. Would the theater have made any more revenue? No, they would have made less. In order to show they lost money, you would to have people who didn't see any movie because of the 3D offering. If they chose to see the 2D version instead, the theater didn't really lose money, they just didn't make as much as they would have if more people opted for the 3D version.

You're incorrect.

Opportunity cost losses are real losses.

If a movie theater has 4 screens and by contract or irrational error shows the movie in 3-D on 2 of them, but only sells 25% of the tickets in 3-D, it has a problem. Consider only one showtime and 4 100-seat theaters.

The 2 theaters with 2-D will be full. The 2 theaters will 3-D will be 2/3 empty (33 tickets sold in each, 66 total, 66 of 266, very close to 25% of the total).

The 75 unsold tickets went unsold because no one was willing to pay $13 instead of $10 for them. But the sellouts on the other two screens suggest there was demand for additional 2-D tickets. The theater could not fill out.

We don't know precisely how much demand went unfilled, but we know it was non-zero. And that is a loss. This idea that it's OK because it wasn't a cash loss is both bizarre and quite frankly also wrong. On Friday nights, theaters typically make their money mostly from concessions, not from selling tickets (unless there are significant carry over films with "legs", which is actually rare). By having fewer people in the multiplex, the theater sells fewer Cokes and fewer popcorns and does, most certainly, lose money. They may also be paying for those extra screens worth of film with a guarantee and not even getting the desired return vs. that.

The irony, of course, is the post you replied to is pretty carefully worded to avoid mentioning direct cash losses, but you responded as if it did. And, in fact, the format is probably causing direct cash losses at this point in a small way. But it's most definitely causing large opportunity cost losses. And they are getting worse.
post #163 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

1) SED was "killed" because it was never able to be manufactured. Keep believing that legal battles undid some great TV technology if that helps you sleep at night, I don't really care. If Toshiba had ever figured out how to mass produce TVs based on it, you would have seen SED TVs.

2) Some of us (cough, ahem, me, cough) called this 3-D thing here more than a year ago. Not because we want to bury 3-D, but rather because we see people rejecting it for numerous reasons. I've actually seen Iron Man 3, Star Trek Into Darkness and Man of Steel in 3-D this summer. That's a huge amount of 3-D for me and mostly it was due to movie times and who we went with, not any actual desire to see the movies in 3-D. All had good "3-D moments". None was "OMG, that was amazing" in 3-D with the possible exception of one scene in Star Trek. I think I'm common here: It's OK, but it doesn't make me want to put on glasses at home to watch TV.

All three of those films are really 2d films that where not shoot for 3d and later converted as as expected they aren't "OMG that was amazing". Have something shoot for and in 3d and the results to me are breathtaking. Such examples include Coraline, Hugo, Prometheus and Avatar. There are some 2d films that when converted look amazing but when not at least shoot for 3d this is extremely rare (Titanic for example is spectacular in 3d).

I'm not sure why anyone would be happy if 3d vanished (which I highly doubt 3d is going anywhere), on top of that the op really thinks 4k is fleecing consumers anymore then 1080p was? Really? This just sounds like one of the countless people who complained about HD as "it doesn't look any better" which slowly turned into "but I don't want to see all that detail" to "omg blu-ray is so awesome".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

You may have called it on 3D TV, however some overly optimistic folks around here thought it was here stay. I rejoice at its demise in the home market, its OK for the commercial cinema, here and there, but should have never been pushed on the home market.

I want to see films at home how the director intended them to be seen. If that means in 2.35:1 that is how I want to see it, if that means 2d that is how I want to see it, if that means 3d that is once again how I want to see it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

I don't think it's nearly as niche. Games are already being rendered in 3D, output to a 2D image - it's trivial to simply render a second camera to add 3D output. This method of rendering 3D halves your performance though.
A lot of techniques such as bump mapping, normal mapping, parallax mapping etc really benefit from being displayed in 3D. What was once a flat 2D texture lit in a way to give the impression of depth, actually has depth when viewed in 3D.

But as I have been saying, current 3DTV sucks. They should have waited for 4K passive before making a push for 3D, and because they pushed for 3D too early, public opinion has turned on the idea of 3D.
I have a 3DTV, I think 3D really benefits games, and I use a PC for gaming, which has the most widespread 3D support - but I'm not using 3D because 3D sucks in its current form.

The good thing about 3D is that support is easy to do on PC, and there's an ever-growing list of titles that are supported. (with Nvidia cards at least) I don't think it's something that is likely to disappear there.
Even though the next generation of games consoles is actually powerful enough to do 3D well this time around, very few titles will support it.

You really don't' have much experience with 3d gaming do you. Due to how most games are made without significant reworking most games do not work well in 3d. Broken shadows, many things only being rendered in 2d etc make the vast majority of games on pc unplayable in 3d. When it is done right it is amazing though.
post #164 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post

The data you posted doesn't show any losses for 3D. For example, it a theater shows a movie in 3 theaters, each of which seats say 100 people. One shows a 3D version and the others show a 2D. Suppose 50 see the 3D version and 150 see the 2D. You say, 75% of the people chose the 2D version, so the theater lost money. How exactly did they lose money? What if they had the 2D version in all 3 theaters and they had 200 people watch it in the 3 theaters instead. Would the theater have made any more revenue? No, they would have made less. In order to show they lost money, you would to have people who didn't see any movie because of the 3D offering. If they chose to see the 2D version instead, the theater didn't really lose money, they just didn't make as much as they would have if more people opted for the 3D version.

You're incorrect.

Opportunity cost losses are real losses.

If a movie theater has 4 screens and by contract or irrational error shows the movie in 3-D on 2 of them, but only sells 25% of the tickets in 3-D, it has a problem. Consider only one showtime and 4 100-seat theaters.

The 2 theaters with 2-D will be full. The 2 theaters will 3-D will be 2/3 empty (33 tickets sold in each, 66 total, 66 of 266, very close to 25% of the total).

The 75 unsold tickets went unsold because no one was willing to pay $13 instead of $10 for them. But the sellouts on the other two screens suggest there was demand for additional 2-D tickets. The theater could not fill out.

We don't know precisely how much demand went unfilled, but we know it was non-zero.

 

I'm still not sure how you know this.  The 3 to 1 ratio of rooms in KidHorn's example would conceivably produce a single 3D room that meets the 3D demand perfectly. No?

post #165 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I'm still not sure how you know this.  The 3 to 1 ratio of rooms in KidHorn's example would conceivably produce a single 3D room that meets the 3D demand perfectly. No?

In any case in America 40% of people are willing to pay more for 3d on average at the moment, in the rest of the world it is at 60%. That means over half the audience is currently willing to pay more to see 3d. 3d has demand that there is no denying, I really want 3d to no longer be a cash grab by studios and be driven by the film makers. In other words stop post conversions unless it is driven by the film makers and get rid of 3d that the film makers did not want such as Star Trek Into Darkness, Clash of the Titans etc. What we need more of is continued support by great film makers shooting more kinds of films in 3d. I very much so wish Ridley and Scorsese's most recent films where shoot in and for 3d as those are the kinds of films we have yet to see available in 3d and both proved themselves very capable of shooting in 3d with there past films.

Now how does that factor in with home, I don't think 3d will ever be anything but a niche at home until glasses are removed from the picture. I do think with 4k displays (meaning we shall have 2k active glasses at home) we shall see an increase in 3d, but until we have a good glasses free solution it will remain a niche at home. There is nothing wrong with a niche, especially as it is worth studios making films in 3d just for there cinematic release and the extra cost of bringing the content to peoples homes I can't imagine would not be all that high. So is 3d at home going anywhere? I cannot see that happening, it is just going to slowly grow and get a bit more of a boost with 4k in a few years time.
post #166 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmReverie View Post

You really don't' have much experience with 3d gaming do you. Due to how most games are made without significant reworking most games do not work well in 3d. Broken shadows, many things only being rendered in 2d etc make the vast majority of games on pc unplayable in 3d. When it is done right it is amazing though.

 

I don't understand this.  A rendering requires a point of view (a virtual camera).  That produces a fine non-3D scene (3D model rendered flatly to 2D).  When viewing in 3D, it need only be done twice from 2 similar perspectives slightly off horizontally, with or without converging "cameras", and you get stereoscopic information for each eye that should work.  Why are there "broken shadows"?

post #167 of 398
Quote:
but 3-D on a puny 60" plasma just doesn't really do it for me.

People need to use the function on the 3DTV that causes the separation between the imagery to appropriately match their interpupilary distance (distance between your eyes) and i suspect its one of those things you must adjust for each video due to the varied way people choose to film in 3D. It simply causes your eyes to be at the proper angle they are in real life. It also allows you to get closer, filling your field of view with the scenery.

The setting is called 3D effect, or Perspective or something to that effect, if your Tv supports it.

You can make 3D imagery that looks just short of flat turn your TV into a window. Try it.
post #168 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I don't understand this.  A rendering requires a point of view (a virtual camera).  That produces a fine non-3D scene (3D model rendered flatly to 2D).  When viewing in 3D, it need only be done twice from 2 similar perspectives slightly off horizontally, with or without converging "cameras", and you get stereoscopic information for each eye that should work.  Why are there "broken shadows"?

As shadows are very frequently not actually rendered in 3d in games, along with particle effects, huds and so on. The reason for this is it requires less power to render them in 2d and is largely a result of the archaic hardware known as the ps3 and 360. Will this improve as we move into next gen? I do hope so, but it currently is a real issue that makes most games unplayable without reworking of the engine and game code. A moder has become quite prominent as he manages to fix many games so that they are playable in 3d, the name he/she goes by his Helix.


As for 3d, another point I would like to point out is that 3d screenings are limited compared to 2d as we currently have more 3d films then ever being released. This means after the first week or so the number of 3d screens drops much faster then 2d screens as the number of 3d screens is still limited when compared to the number or 2d screens. This results in 3d screenings to be cannibalizing one another. Despite this worldwide it still sits above 50% last I checked where willing to pay more to view a film in 3d (which is more impressive given some of the terrible conversions there have been). 3d revenue has gone up 40% every year for the last four years. That is not something that can be considered dead.
post #169 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by tory40 View Post
 
Quote:
but 3-D on a puny 60" plasma just doesn't really do it for me.

People need to use the function on the 3DTV that causes the separation between the imagery to appropriately match their interpupilary distance (distance between your eyes) and i suspect its one of those things you must adjust for each video due to the varied way people choose to film in 3D. It simply causes your eyes to be at the proper angle they are in real life. It also allows you to get closer, filling your field of view with the scenery.

 

This is a common misconception.  You don't need to strictly match the distance between the eyes in order for the perspective to come across ok.  In fact cameras rarely are even filmed with such separations---the source itself breaks that rule.  You also get the choice between parallel and converging cameras.

 

 

I like this particular write up on it on one such set of calculations, even though it deals primarily with still 3D.

 

Remember: there is a natural Z axial flattening of an image as the distance from you (or camera) increase.  That flattening isn't helped by zooming in.  There's a decision process that's fairly complicated that can and does exceed the eye spacing in order to mitigate the flattening effect, and this depends upon how far off the filming is likely to be and how pronounced the director wants the perspective to be.  At the source.
 

Side bar (Click to show)

You can't go overboard either, but remember that even in 2D you get perspective distortion due to different styles of lenses and whether or not you're zooming in, or tracking in, etc., or even zooming in while tracking out to get that F'd up effect like the beginning of Hawaii Five-O.

 

BTW, My blu-ray player actually asks you the physical size of the display it's driving to give a known starting point for further calculations.  I don't like Blu-Ray's getting in the way of this because it leads us into calculations done in two places; that's something that bothers me.

post #170 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmReverie View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I don't understand this.  A rendering requires a point of view (a virtual camera).  That produces a fine non-3D scene (3D model rendered flatly to 2D).  When viewing in 3D, it need only be done twice from 2 similar perspectives slightly off horizontally, with or without converging "cameras", and you get stereoscopic information for each eye that should work.  Why are there "broken shadows"?

As shadows are very frequently not actually rendered in 3d in games, along with particle effects, huds and so on. The reason for this is it requires less power to render them in 2d and is largely a result of the archaic hardware known as the ps3 and 360.

 

I'm still not sure I understand this.  In game demos I've seen for years involving varying light sources (3D modeling onto a 2D display), the light source is in one place (for a single light soure), oriented at a certain angle, and the shadows behave.  As you walk around the object casting the shadow, the shadow stays put where it should.  This requires a 3D calculation even if it's rendered by a 2D modification of the 2D textures on the objects.  That still puts the shadows in the right place when rendered onto a 3D display.  No?  Or are you saying there's a kind of 2D short cut acting as some kind of darkening overlay directly over the post rendered image?

post #171 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I'm still not sure I understand this.  In game demos I've seen for years involving varying light sources (3D modeling onto a 2D display), the light source is in one place (for a single light soure), oriented at a certain angle, and the shadows behave.  As you walk around the object casting the shadow, the shadow stays put where it should.  This requires a 3D calculation even if it's rendered by a 2D modification of the 2D textures on the objects.  That still puts the shadows in the right place when rendered onto a 3D display.  No?  Or are you saying there's a kind of 2D short cut acting as some kind of darkening overlay directly over the post rendered image?

The most common issue is the engine renders the shadow in the same place in both eyes when of course it should be different as the perspective in each eye is different (hence how we see 3d), another common issue is shadows only being rendered in one eye. Most engines are not designed for 3d and most games are programmed with the assumption that the game will only be played in 2d. How the second image is rendered isn't as simple as you seem to think (or as simple as it really should be) and varies based on if the engine, whether it is natively rendering the second image in game or if nvidia 3d vision api is being used etc.

When everything works as it should the experience is unmatched (for example Battlefield 3, The Witcher 2, Tomb Raider, Hard Reset etc), but just because the image is being rendered in real time does not mean what could be even considered watchable 3d will be possible. I hope that makes some more sense. smile.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by tory40 View Post

People need to use the function on the 3DTV that causes the separation between the imagery to appropriately match their interpupilary distance (distance between your eyes) and i suspect its one of those things you must adjust for each video due to the varied way people choose to film in 3D. It simply causes your eyes to be at the proper angle they are in real life. It also allows you to get closer, filling your field of view with the scenery.

The setting is called 3D effect, or Perspective or something to that effect, if your Tv supports it.

You can make 3D imagery that looks just short of flat turn your TV into a window. Try it.

I would not recommend this at all, it really is the equivalent of turning your color saturation up as high as it can go. It is not how the film makers intended the film to be seen, what they put at screen depth should be left at screen depth, the amount of depth between objects should also be kept the same.
post #172 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmReverie View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I'm still not sure I understand this.  In game demos I've seen for years involving varying light sources (3D modeling onto a 2D display), the light source is in one place (for a single light soure), oriented at a certain angle, and the shadows behave.  As you walk around the object casting the shadow, the shadow stays put where it should.  This requires a 3D calculation even if it's rendered by a 2D modification of the 2D textures on the objects.  That still puts the shadows in the right place when rendered onto a 3D display.  No?  Or are you saying there's a kind of 2D short cut acting as some kind of darkening overlay directly over the post rendered image?

The most common issue is the engine renders the shadow in the same place in both eyes when of course it should be different as the perspective in each eye is different (hence how we see 3d)

 

I'm not doubting you, I just want to understand this because (like many here) I've hand-written a rendering program or two in my time.  I'd still like to know what's going on underneath that's causing this.  As stated, it doesn't follow.

 

The shadow already has to land on a place (say on the floor) that stays put (on a 2D device).  That shadow moves in screen coordinates along with the rest of the rendered object.  If it's on one place on the floor, it'll get rendered from each eye because the game should be feeding the graphics engine of each card as if you're standing in two different places (on two 2D displays).  In fact only one of two things can be happening:

 

  1. Either the game is using a 2D overlay to calculate the shadow on top of the (post) rendered model frame.  That makes no sense, because it's just as hard to calculate that from 3D as it is to calculate it in 3D to begin with.  Otherwise you'd never have the shadow in the right place anyway even on a 2D display.
  2. or...The game is just not feeding the two engines (or the single engine twice) with two different perspectives, in which case the rest of the map would never behave right on a 3D display, shadows or not.

 

Neither of these make sense to me as rational possibilities.  Is there a 3rd option I'm not taking into account?

post #173 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmReverie View Post

Due to how most games are made without significant reworking most games do not work well in 3d. Broken shadows, many things only being rendered in 2d etc make the vast majority of games on pc unplayable in 3d. When it is done right it is amazing though.

I would say the vast majority of PC games have been fixed for 3D. Have you heard of the Helix mod? With Helix's work (free) and/or Tridef ($50), I assume just about every game now has been made to work with 3D by the community. All my favorite games certainly are. The last game i played in 2D was Rage. OpenGL games do not work without specific support added, like Doom 3 BFG edition in which Carmack built in 3D support and games like Dayz (of the Arma 2 engine) are SIGNIFICANTLY enhanced by 3D, but require you to switch to 2D for combat due to doubling sights. Doubling sights are now fixed too and a plugin can be installed in any game you play to shift the convergence when you zoom in to aim.
Quote:
I would not recommend this at all, it really is the equivalent of turning your color saturation up as high as it can go. It is not how the film makers intended the film to be seen, what they put at screen depth should be left at screen depth, the amount of depth between objects should also be kept the same.

No, its more like tuning the saturation to the correct amount or a somehow much more impressive setting. You have to understand that 3D is very new for most film makers, they are still learning what works the best and more to the point: they must compromise to account for varied IPD, viewing distances and screen sizes and captured field of view, which ALL MATTER. Many still don't even understand that when you put Godzilla at screen depth, your making his physical size the height of whatever display your watching. What is the point of having the the front of a Lamborgini pop into the screen if it makes it look like a toy, when you can simply adjust the "perspective" setting on the TV and have it go "into" the screen, give more 3D depth and look life size, turning the Tv into a proper window. When professional 3D content makers (not hollywood) talk about the content they can provide, they will discuss a specific display size, among other very specific viewing parameters, that they will adjust for.

Compare that with the compromises of a 3D movie, filmed for a theater sized screen, with it taken into account that children with small heads and small IPD's may also watch the movie, possibly even sitting in the front row, who's eye's must not be made to diverge outward -despite the fact that the average IPD is 6.5cm. Now take that movie and shrink it down to a 55" or smaller screen, and you've got a maximum (MAXIMUM!!) separation [for distant scenery] of less than a half inch in the movie Tron. I don't think any amount of backing away from the screen in normal viewing spaces will account for that little separation.

When i was new to 3D, and made the demo videos in my signature to show non-3D users the potential of 3D, i didn't bother even mentioning the size of the display i was using to which i had precisely tuned Nvidia 3DTV Play's depth and convergence settings for, not to mention my IPD and viewing distance. Now, after having used many different sized monitors, i've written that you must use a 46" - 55" display to see it properly as an average sized adult. Viewing the same on a 27" monitor results in a lackluster, un-lifelike, looking 3D image for me.

As far as being concerned about "how the film makers intended" it, thanks for the laugh. If i keep watching movies and play games "how [current] film makers intended it", i may not be a movie goer or game player for much longer... Remember the point of changing it is to made it MORE impressive to YOURSELF, not just change it arbitrarily. I would even go so far as to say that setting will help save 3D.
post #174 of 398
^ I am well aware of who he is and he is awesome cool.gif, but still a huge number of games that make of the vast majority of games will never be fixed and as we move to next gen he won't be able to help anymore as he can only mod dx9 from what he has said. Also some of his fixes simply do not work for many when others do, that is the problem with mods.

As for the changing the 3d image, it is changing the image and thus to me is unacceptable. I am a purist though, I take no issue with other people doing it if they like to. I just wouldn't recommend it ever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I'm not doubting you, I just want to understand this because (like many here) I've hand-written a rendering program or two in my time.  I'd still like to know what's going on underneath that's causing this.  As stated, it doesn't follow.

The shadow already has to land on a place (say on the floor) that stays put (on a 2D device).  That shadow moves in screen coordinates along with the rest of the rendered object.  If it's on one place on the floor, it'll get rendered from each eye because the game should be feeding the graphics engine of each card as if you're standing in two different places (on two 2D displays).  In fact only one of two things can be happening:
  1. Either the game is using a 2D overlay to calculate the shadow on top of the (post) rendered model frame.  That makes no sense, because it's just as hard to calculate that from 3D as it is to calculate it in 3D to begin with.  Otherwise you'd never have the shadow in the right place anyway even on a 2D display.
  2. or...The game is just not feeding the two engines (or the single engine twice) with two different perspectives, in which case the rest of the map would never behave right on a 3D display, shadows or not.

Neither of these make sense to me as rational possibilities.  Is there a 3rd option I'm not taking into account?

I am no programmer and it was an assumption that it was to save on resource use, what I do know is what the most common problems are There are a multitude of issues that can be present, shadows for me have been the most prevalent issue. I do love 3d gaming, I just don't want to mislead people into thinking everything works when large amounts simply do not.
post #175 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

This is a common misconception.  You don't need to strictly match the distance between the eyes in order for the perspective to come across ok.  In fact cameras rarely are even filmed with such separations---the source itself breaks that rule.  You also get the choice between parallel and converging cameras.

I say the following as an IMMENSE 3D ENTHUSIAST:

As you say: "cameras rarely are even filmed with such separations" + 3D movies are horrible in general (my opinion) = *light bulb* . Now we're getting somewhere. I guess i should have said that playing with the setting may result in an awesome improvement, but that results will vary with viewing conditions like size of the TV and viewing distance.

Don't take my word for it, try it yourself:

These are two videos that on my 46" display, sitting 6' or more away from the Tv, greatly benefit from increasing the separation. What are you opinions, if you can try it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhBY_p4y7pw
The yellow car here goes from looking smaller than it should and unimpressive due to being positioned at screen depth, giving it the size of my TV as its size -to being pushed back into the screen, less close to me, but lifesize, now looking like a window to another place and even a little captivating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUZAWXVKok
Here for me there is more depth and the scene looks lifelike, again the Tv becomes a window to what looks like an actual place. There is not just fake looking things floating at different depths.

Just noticed these two videos require a L->R / R ->L change. The "perspective" function will adjust the other way as well.
Edited by tory40 - 9/27/13 at 5:20pm
post #176 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmReverie View Post

^ I am well aware of who he is and he is awesome cool.gif, but still a huge number of games that make of the vast majority of games will never be fixed and as we move to next gen he won't be able to help anymore as he can only mod dx9 from what he has said. Also some of his fixes simply do not work for many when others do, that is the problem with mods.

As for the changing the 3d image, it is changing the image and thus to me is unacceptable. I am a purist though, I take no issue with other people doing it if they like to. I just wouldn't recommend it ever.
I am no programmer and it was an assumption that it was to save on resource use, what I do know is what the most common problems are There are a multitude of issues that can be present, shadows for me have been the most prevalent issue. I do love 3d gaming, I just don't want to mislead people into thinking everything works when large amounts simply do not.

What game doesn't work for you? He and the community fix immersion oriented games, not side scrollers, not pacman/tetris reboots, not dance competition games. As i understand it, he has stated in the past that fixing DX11 games would be very difficult, not impossible. Another group has too. He and the other group has now fixed Bioshock Infinite, a DX11-only game. Not heard of anybody not being able to get it to work.
post #177 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by tory40 View Post

What game doesn't work for you? He and the community fix immersion oriented games, not side scrollers, not pacman/tetris reboots, not dance competition games. As i understand it, he has stated in the past that fixing DX11 games would be very difficult, not impossible. Another group has too. He and the other group has now fixed Bioshock Infinite, a DX11-only game. Not heard of anybody not being able to get it to work.

To be certain I would have to try them out again, I haven't really been playing much in the last two months aside from Rayman. I'm fairly certain Hitman Absolution was the last game I tried to play prior to that which just was horrible in 3d (despite apparently supporting it).
post #178 of 398
It will be interesting to see the sales for Wizard of Oz 3d.
post #179 of 398
More reasons for 3D dying:

1) The headsets don't work if you wear eyeglasses. You can, technically, have the headset mounted at the tip of your nose, so long as you don't care about it constantly falling off and all that weight concentrated in one tiny place.

2) The unnatural way shots are composed for movies that will have a 3D release just screams "gimmick".
post #180 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizwig View Post

More reasons for 3D dying:

1) The headsets don't work if you wear eyeglasses. You can, technically, have the headset mounted at the tip of your nose, so long as you don't care about it constantly falling off and all that weight concentrated in one tiny place.

2) The unnatural way shots are composed for movies that will have a 3D release just screams "gimmick".

 

Not quite, and not quite.  The whole premise is faulty.  But first for your numberd points:

 

1. My passive 3D glasses are super light and fit over everyone's existing eyeglasses comfortably.  I've asked everyone and they have all said they are perfectly comfortable.  Active largely cannot manage that well, and IMO active should never have been released.

 

2. Not when done properly.  And then we're at the definition of simply good movie or bad movie.  3D gimicks are gimicks first, and gimicks never have longevity.  3D gimicks will die off.  It would be like color gimicks or 4K gimicks.  3D done properly (as in Avatar, and I hear Gravity is close) is a vehicle to immerse you into a storyline.  Note: not immerse you visually into a scene.  But to have you land within the story more completely all the while forgetting that 3D is even being used.

 

People have to just got to get this crap notion out of their heads that 3D is some kind of attribute existing by itself.  It does not.  When a part of a good movie, it's just as much a part of that good movie as the story plot, lighting, resolution, color, (etc.) are.

 

If what you have are 3D gimicks, then what you have is called a bad movie.  Not a condemnation of 3D.  But a bad movie.  And that's a definition we already understand well.


Edited by tgm1024 - 10/9/13 at 4:50pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › 4 Reasons the 3D TV Movement is Already Dead