# 3D HDTV is the most pointless mainstream technology ever.



## NOOBZ1LLA

It came to my attention today after visiting my local Sony Style store that 3D TV's are the most pointless mainstream technology ever.


How did this happen? When did consumers get on top of rooftops and start screaming for 3D capable TV's in their living room? I don't think that ever actually happened.


It was like one day a bunch of major corporations got together and were like hey we are going to tell the American sheeple they want 3D Tv's. But even the most greedy CEO has to be scratching his head trying to understand how a person would want to willingly wear a heavy pair of heavy glasses for hours at a time. Do you really think you can make it through Lord of the Rings with those things on?



First of all the technology itself is flawed. Have you watched 3D TV demos on LCD's? Were you blown away? Did you feel a revolution on the horizon in how people receive visual media?


My biggest complaint really is that the 3D effect itself looks dinky and cheap. It reminds me of this toy I had when I was a kid. You know the one it was red and you put it up to your face and looked into it. It came with those circular paper discs with slides in them. You put the disc in the top and it had a lever you pull on that would switch to the next image. The 3D effect produced by the top LCD's today is similar to a childs toy from the 1980s.


I really don't understand what everyone is so excited about. I'd rather have a local dimming LED/LCD TV without having to pay a premium for 3D ready, since as far as I know there is no 2010 flagship model minus 3D capability.


3D TV is nothing more than a blatantly engineered marketing gimmick.


Am I wrong?


----------



## ricwhite




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NOOBZ1LLA* /forum/post/18438045
> 
> 
> It came to my attention today after visiting my local Sony Style store that 3D TV's are the most pointless mainstream technology ever.
> 
> 
> How did this happen? When did consumers get on top of rooftops and start screaming for 3D capable TV's in their living room? I don't think that ever actually happened.
> 
> 
> It was like one day a bunch of major corporations got together and were like hey we are going to tell the American sheeple they want 3D Tv's. But even the most greedy CEO has to be scratching his head trying to understand how a person would want to willingly wear a heavy pair of heavy glasses for hours at a time. Do you really think you can make it through Lord of the Rings with those things on?
> 
> 
> 
> First of all the technology itself is flawed. Have you watched 3D TV demos on LCD's? Were you blown away? Did you feel a revolution on the horizon in how people receive visual media?
> 
> 
> My biggest complaint really is that the 3D effect itself looks dinky and cheap. It reminds me of this toy I had when I was a kid. You know the one it was red and you put it up to your face and looked into it. It came with those circular paper discs with slides in them. You put the disc in the top and it had a lever you pull on that would switch to the next image. The 3D effect produced by the top LCD's today is similar to a childs toy from the 1980s.
> 
> 
> I really don't understand what everyone is so excited about. I'd rather have a local dimming LED/LCD TV without having to pay a premium for 3D ready, since as far as I know there is no 2010 flagship model minus 3D capability.
> 
> 
> 3D TV is nothing more than a blatantly engineered marketing gimmick.
> 
> 
> Am I wrong?



Yes


----------



## serialmike




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NOOBZ1LLA* /forum/post/18438045
> 
> 
> It came to my attention today after visiting my local Sony Style store that 3D TV's are the most pointless mainstream technology ever.
> 
> 
> How did this happen? When did consumers get on top of rooftops and start screaming for 3D capable TV's in their living room? I don't think that ever actually happened.
> 
> 
> It was like one day a bunch of major corporations got together and were like hey we are going to tell the American sheeple they want 3D Tv's. But even the most greedy CEO has to be scratching his head trying to understand how a person would want to willingly wear a heavy pair of heavy glasses for hours at a time. Do you really think you can make it through Lord of the Rings with those things on?
> 
> 
> 
> First of all the technology itself is flawed. Have you watched 3D TV demos on LCD's? Were you blown away? Did you feel a revolution on the horizon in how people receive visual media?
> 
> 
> My biggest complaint really is that the 3D effect itself looks dinky and cheap. It reminds me of this toy I had when I was a kid. You know the one it was red and you put it up to your face and looked into it. It came with those circular paper discs with slides in them. You put the disc in the top and it had a lever you pull on that would switch to the next image. The 3D effect produced by the top LCD's today is similar to a childs toy from the 1980s.
> 
> 
> I really don't understand what everyone is so excited about. I'd rather have a local dimming LED/LCD TV without having to pay a premium for 3D ready, since as far as I know there is no 2010 flagship model minus 3D capability.
> 
> 
> 3D TV is nothing more than a blatantly engineered marketing gimmick.
> 
> 
> Am I wrong?



yes and no. your right current 3d is crude. It is supposed to be no glasses in the "future"


----------



## Holy bear

You should know that Sony's 3D LCD TVs are considered to be the worst ones.


----------



## bk.secret23




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Holy bear* /forum/post/18438087
> 
> 
> You should know that Sony's 3D LCD TVs are considered to be the worst ones.



By whom?


----------



## Holy bear




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bk.secret23* /forum/post/18438121
> 
> 
> By whom?



Some Japanese websites and hdguru.


Just one of them (Translated from Japanese)
http://translate.google.com/translat...ml&sl=ja&tl=en


----------



## JoeSony




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NOOBZ1LLA* /forum/post/18438045
> 
> 
> It came to my attention today after visiting my local Sony Style store that 3D TV's are the most pointless mainstream technology ever.
> 
> 
> How did this happen? When did consumers get on top of rooftops and start screaming for 3D capable TV's in their living room? I don't think that ever actually happened.
> 
> 
> It was like one day a bunch of major corporations got together and were like hey we are going to tell the American sheeple they want 3D Tv's. But even the most greedy CEO has to be scratching his head trying to understand how a person would want to willingly wear a heavy pair of heavy glasses for hours at a time. Do you really think you can make it through Lord of the Rings with those things on?
> 
> 
> 
> First of all the technology itself is flawed. Have you watched 3D TV demos on LCD's? Were you blown away? Did you feel a revolution on the horizon in how people receive visual media?
> 
> 
> My biggest complaint really is that the 3D effect itself looks dinky and cheap. It reminds me of this toy I had when I was a kid. You know the one it was red and you put it up to your face and looked into it. It came with those circular paper discs with slides in them. You put the disc in the top and it had a lever you pull on that would switch to the next image. The 3D effect produced by the top LCD's today is similar to a childs toy from the 1980s.
> 
> 
> I really don't understand what everyone is so excited about. I'd rather have a local dimming LED/LCD TV without having to pay a premium for 3D ready, since as far as I know there is no 2010 flagship model minus 3D capability.
> 
> 
> 3D TV is nothing more than a blatantly engineered marketing gimmick.
> 
> 
> Am I wrong?



Hear about the greatest grossing movie of all time Avatar, I think that has a lot to do with the direction of HD TVs and 3D. Sports programming will soon follow.


----------



## Tony6225

I agree for the most part. 3D is going to be a gimmick until it can be viewed without glasses.


----------



## Darcy1104




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NOOBZ1LLA* /forum/post/18438045
> 
> 
> Am I wrong?



No.


----------



## MetalAlien

Avatar was TERRIBLE!


----------



## NOOBZ1LLA

Dude Avatar was shot with 3d in mind. They used special cameras to shoot the movie. Most movies are not shot in this way, much less most television shows.


I didn't know that 2D wasn't enough for everyone.


----------



## Zenith DTT900

I haven't seen one of these televisions myself, but I don't like the idea of 3D televisions. I just don't see the point in it. Maybe as a niche market, but definitely not something as common as it is today.


----------



## kittycarole




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NOOBZ1LLA* /forum/post/18438045
> 
> 
> as far as I know there is no 2010 flagship model minus 3D capability.



That is what bothers me. I am in the market to buy a new TV to replace my 6 year old 50" Pioneer Elite plasma but I have zero interest in 3D. So what to do? Bite the bullet and pay for something I will never use?


----------



## Scopeboy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NOOBZ1LLA* /forum/post/18438045
> 
> 
> It came to my attention today after visiting my local Sony Style store that 3D TV's are the most pointless mainstream technology ever.
> 
> 
> How did this happen? When did consumers get on top of rooftops and start screaming for 3D capable TV's in their living room? I don't think that ever actually happened.
> 
> 
> It was like one day a bunch of major corporations got together and were like hey we are going to tell the American sheeple they want 3D Tv's. But even the most greedy CEO has to be scratching his head trying to understand how a person would want to willingly wear a heavy pair of heavy glasses for hours at a time. Do you really think you can make it through Lord of the Rings with those things on?
> 
> 
> 
> First of all the technology itself is flawed. Have you watched 3D TV demos on LCD's? Were you blown away? Did you feel a revolution on the horizon in how people receive visual media?
> 
> 
> My biggest complaint really is that the 3D effect itself looks dinky and cheap. It reminds me of this toy I had when I was a kid. You know the one it was red and you put it up to your face and looked into it. It came with those circular paper discs with slides in them. You put the disc in the top and it had a lever you pull on that would switch to the next image. The 3D effect produced by the top LCD's today is similar to a childs toy from the 1980s.
> 
> 
> I really don't understand what everyone is so excited about. I'd rather have a local dimming LED/LCD TV without having to pay a premium for 3D ready, since as far as I know there is no 2010 flagship model minus 3D capability.
> 
> 
> 3D TV is nothing more than a blatantly engineered marketing gimmick.
> 
> 
> Am I wrong?



Nope, your completely right. And if people really think they need a new tv, the manufacturers just gave them a reason to pony up for one........... Instead, why don't they just make a set without problems?????. Now, they are going to create a whole new set for us to deal with...............yes, I'm bitter.


----------



## Scopeboy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeSony* /forum/post/18438237
> 
> 
> Hear about the greatest grossing movie of all time Avatar, I think that has a lot to do with the direction of HD TVs and 3D. Sports programming will soon follow.



It's funny that you mentioned sports programming..........and you are right about that. However, during the Cowboys/Chargers game this past season, they showed fans at Texas Stadium game in 3D. I guess this is the technology that is going to change how we view sports.........







5 minutes into the 3rd quarter, people started moaning and taking off their glasses. If this is the attention span with 3D and 80,000 people, I hope it gets a whole lot better or interesting.......because this was NOT a good sign. I myself don't like 3D. I saw Avatar in it and I was sick....so count me out as a person who will buy one.


----------



## nineteen70

I was in a furniture store today and they had the movie up on it looked really good in 1080. Now I asked myself will 3d make it look that much better and my answer was no. Now the other question I ask myself is that would I like to watch sports in 3D yes and after going to the movies and seeing 3d on a huge screen and having a projector setup myself why would I want to watch 3d on a 46" lcd or plasma so like serialmike said yes and no.


----------



## heatfuego

I love 3D and can't wait to get a new 3DTV .


----------



## display veteran

3-D started in the 50's, made a comeback in the 80's and here it is again for another shot. My opinion is that it has a chance of becoming popular with the gaming folks. It is a totally different experience when playing a video game as opposed to the "jump out at you" effects that are purposely added to 3-D movies. We'll see where it goes. If you don't care for 3-D nobody is going to force you to buy it.


There will be high-end models introduced this year with local dimming and, yes, they will have 3-D capability. The nice thing is that if you don't want to see 3-D you simply don't use the feature. Without 3-D you will have a local dimming 240HZ panel. With 3-D you select a 3-D source, put on the glasses and enjoy dual 120HZ video.


----------



## lcaillo

Yeah, but you have to admit that people who wear those glasses playing games look pretty dumb and aren't going to be attracting the opposite sex very much.


----------



## NYpanda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NOOBZ1LLA* /forum/post/18438606
> 
> 
> Dude Avatar was shot with 3d in mind. They used special cameras to shoot the movie. Most movies are not shot in this way, much less most television shows.
> 
> 
> I didn't know that 2D wasn't enough for everyone.



And you don't think that other directors and movies studios will be following suit given the smashing fiscal success of Avatar?


Welcome back to reality. This world is driven by the almighty dollar, and success breeds a copycat syndrome.


----------



## happy nightmares

Here at the forum, we're always telling each other not to judge a TV's picture quality "in-store" conditions, yet people are doing exactly that with 3D. They are spending 5 minutes with demo material in-store... and making up their minds. We are not following our own advice.


The only people who can really judge the quality of 3D at home... are people that *have* 3D at home.


And it seems the majority of people I see putting-down or insulting 3D... do not have a 3D television at home.


----------



## Aztek87

I think the new 3-D technology it's amazing but it should stay in the theaters, no HDTV at home will match watching AVATAR on IMAX 3D


----------



## Ericthemidget




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lcaillo* /forum/post/18439761
> 
> 
> Yeah, but you have to admit that people who wear those glasses playing games look pretty dumb and aren't going to be attracting the opposite sex very much.



or the same sex for thatg matter


----------



## Timothy91

IMO,


3D won't work so long as glasses are needed to experience it and the standard viewing TV size is used. For 3D to work, it must be viewable by the naked eye AND completely fill the field of vision of the viewer. Without both of those factors fulfilled, you can't make 3D work at home. The big reason 3D is working at the movie theaters is, well it's BIG. The screen fills your entire view and there are no other things going on to distract you.


History shows that 3D has always been treated as a passing fancy. A fad. Like bell-bottom jeans, polyester button shirts, platform shoes, you also can group "movies in 3D". I say today is no different.


----------



## jbug




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lcaillo* /forum/post/18439761
> 
> 
> Yeah, but you have to admit that people who wear those glasses playing games look pretty dumb and aren't going to be attracting the opposite sex very much.



Wow! What a limited statement to make. So folks wearing glasses and playing games are worried about how they look. I can see someone saying, "let me hurry up and finish this game before a fine lady comes in." Your statement sounds so cavemanish.


----------



## JamE55

3D HDTV's....Breaking the American sheeple since Avatar came out!


----------



## Duke Phillips

As I mentioned in one of the other threads; what annoys me about 3D is that all the money and time spent on it should instead be going towards getting zero input lag and CRT-level SD.


Fix existing problems before introducing new ones.


----------



## obeck

I'll reserve comment for a few years. If it is a gimmick, it will die a fast death. If it is not, then 2nd and 3rd generations of 3D should be FAR better than what is in the stores this year.


I would not pay one cent extra for it at this point. I can't see paying a premium for 1st gen technology and virtually no native source content (though there will be lots of quasi-postprocessed 3d). That would be like paying for 1080p in 2005 to look at upconverted 480i.


Given the slow uptake of 1080p, given that a lot of local broadcasts STILL don't use HD cameras, I can't see a lot of non-hollywood productions moving to 3D setups for MANY years.


----------



## obeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Duke Phillips* /forum/post/18440483
> 
> 
> As I mentioned in one of the other threads; what annoys me about 3D is that all the money and time spent on it should instead be going towards getting zero input lag and CRT-level SD.
> 
> 
> Fix existing problems before introducing new ones.



BINGO. Lets all say it together: "PERFECT BACK LIGHTING: ZERO CLOUDING OR FLASHLIGHT DEFECTS IS THE GOAL".


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NOOBZ1LLA* /forum/post/18438045
> 
> 
> It came to my attention today after visiting my local Sony Style store that 3D TV's are the most pointless mainstream technology ever.
> 
> 
> How did this happen? When did consumers get on top of rooftops and start screaming for 3D capable TV's in their living room? I don't think that ever actually happened.
> 
> 
> It was like one day a bunch of major corporations got together and were like hey we are going to tell the American sheeple they want 3D Tv's. But even the most greedy CEO has to be scratching his head trying to understand how a person would want to willingly wear a heavy pair of heavy glasses for hours at a time. Do you really think you can make it through Lord of the Rings with those things on?
> 
> 
> 
> First of all the technology itself is flawed. Have you watched 3D TV demos on LCD's? Were you blown away? Did you feel a revolution on the horizon in how people receive visual media?
> 
> 
> My biggest complaint really is that the 3D effect itself looks dinky and cheap. It reminds me of this toy I had when I was a kid. You know the one it was red and you put it up to your face and looked into it. It came with those circular paper discs with slides in them. You put the disc in the top and it had a lever you pull on that would switch to the next image. The 3D effect produced by the top LCD's today is similar to a childs toy from the 1980s.
> 
> 
> I really don't understand what everyone is so excited about. I'd rather have a local dimming LED/LCD TV without having to pay a premium for 3D ready, since as far as I know there is no 2010 flagship model minus 3D capability.
> 
> 
> 3D TV is nothing more than a blatantly engineered marketing gimmick.
> 
> 
> Am I wrong?






Look! I have seen Samsung 3D display, Sony 3D (?) Display in Sony style and i also saw Panasonic 3D display.




Check all of them first and please make sure when you go to your local BestBuy store is to make sure you check for pop out factor and depth in the picture. SOME BESTBUYS have the wrong setup!! I have witnessed that my experience seeing both Samsung and Panasonic 3D display for first time i had terrible experience because the glasses weren't working properly so make sure that both 3D glasses are turned on and check with BB salesman to see if the 3D material that being displayed in TV that are in 3D mode, because it could be 2D - 3D conversion that is going on and that ruin your experience!!! Because it will NOT BE true 3D experience anyway.





Now to the important point, I have visited Sony Style store and they had a demo of a game and Soccer match in 3D but here is the thing, they had the TV hooked up to ps3 slim so i asked the salesman, I told him is that the updated ps3 slim? Because we all know that right after the update the ps3 slim/phat should be 3D player or able to play 3D just fine. To my surprise he said no, IT'S NOT UPDATED and therefore they're using ps3 slim 2D blu ray player to play 3D blu ray disc so what you're seeing is 2D - 3D conversion and not a true 3D because the blu ray have to be 3D player as well and trust me i didn't like what i seen, conversion is fine but i felt that Samsung and Panasonic had a better or a true 3D experience. Samsung 3D TV were hooked to 3D blu ray player running 3D blu ray player disc and movie was MONSTERS VS. ALIENS in the demo and trust me, there are 3D effects, there were some scenes that they were popping out of the screen, like the gun scene!! I never seen any popping out effect in Sony 3D in Sony style store.





So again, try to give another try to see a demo in a proper way and come back and tell us if the experience remains the same. I have helped some folks in the forum and some made claimed that they didn't notice any 3D effect and how 3D truly sucks, i suggested to them to go back and check it again and they had positive feedback in the 2nd try.





3D is new tech, just like anything comes new, it has it's problems but in couple years it should get better, just like Blu rays now. We can't attack a new tech when it is the true 1st year in production and broadcasting are going in 3D for people to watch at home, like ESPN 3D and another channel in the way too.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *display veteran* /forum/post/18439705
> 
> 
> 3-D started in the 50's, made a comeback in the 80's and here it is again for another shot. My opinion is that it has a chance of becoming popular with the gaming folks. It is a totally different experience when playing a video game as opposed to the "jump out at you" effects that are purposely added to 3-D movies. We'll see where it goes. If you don't care for 3-D nobody is going to force you to buy it.
> 
> 
> There will be high-end models introduced this year with local dimming and, yes, they will have 3-D capability. The nice thing is that if you don't want to see 3-D you simply don't use the feature. Without 3-D you will have a local dimming 240HZ panel. With 3-D you select a 3-D source, put on the glasses and enjoy dual 120HZ video.






Excellent point and open minded post! By 2011 or 2012 most TV sets if not all of them will have 3D capabilities... NO ONE will force you to watch 3D, it's only a feature. You never have to use it at all, End of story!


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *happy nightmares* /forum/post/18439899
> 
> 
> Here at the forum, we're always telling each other not to judge a TV's picture quality "in-store" conditions, yet people are doing exactly that with 3D. They are spending 5 minutes with demo material in-store... and making up their minds. We are not following our own advice.
> 
> 
> The only people who can really judge the quality of 3D at home... are people that *have* 3D at home.
> 
> 
> And it seems the majority of people I see putting-down or insulting 3D... do not have a 3D television at home.






agreed! 3D is a feature. If you are in the out to buy a TV in the future. It will have 3D capabilities, so would people refuse buying new TVs because it have 3D capabilities?


----------



## eddy_winds




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *worldcup2010espn* /forum/post/18441031
> 
> 
> agreed! 3d is a feature. If you are in the out to buy a tv in the future. It will have 3d capabilities, so would people refuse buying new tvs because it have 3d capabilities?



+1


----------



## Timothy91




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WorldCup2010ESPN* /forum/post/18440690
> 
> 
> 3D is new tech, just like anything comes new, it has it's problems....



No. It's NOT a "new" tech. It's a re-tread technology that has been a "fad" in the past with movies. The necessary technology to make it "new" would be to make the television "3D" without needing glasses. Now THAT would be "new". This 3D is not new, it's never become mainstream in the past, has flopped before and will likely flame out again.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Timothy91* /forum/post/18441176
> 
> 
> No. It's NOT a "new" tech. It's a re-tread technology that has been a "fad" in the past with movies. The necessary technology to make it "new" would be to make the television "3D" without needing glasses. Now THAT would be "new". This 3D is not new, it's never become mainstream in the past, has flopped before and will likely flame out again.






I made myself clear in the same posting. Stay around for couple years and lets see if your opinion holds. The attack on 3D is nothing but extremely silly, too bad people doesn't go back and witness how technology really work. I remember the exact same type of hatred when High def first came. it's repeating itself, people can't be patient enough.


----------



## pmreedjr

I'm looking forward to and will be buying into 3D late this or early next year, probably the 72" Visio and an appropriate 3D BD player.


----------



## Timothy91




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WorldCup2010ESPN* /forum/post/18441204
> 
> 
> I made myself clear in the same posting. Stay around for couple years and lets see if your opinion holds. The attack on 3D is nothing but extremely silly, too bad people doesn't go back and witness how technology really work. I remember the exact same type of hatred when High def first came. it's repeating itself, people can't be patient enough.



High def is about extra resolution that doesn't require anything from the viewer. It's just a sharper 2-D image. A 'better' TV. 3D is different. It requires a user to sit in one place with a pair of silly glasses on their face. This won't work in a home environment because people want to be able to hit 'pause' and just 'live'. It's not like the movies where the environment allows for people to sit in the dark quietly and watch a movie. At a movie theater, 3D works fine. It's a rolling fad again and it will likely fade out again. I don't think I've seen an instance where people shun a better looking film, which is like going from the old NTSC to HDTV.


----------



## dave300zx

I love how Sony's 3d is the "worst". Their 3d TVs are not even available to the public. Any TVs that the public have seen are most likely prototypes. Sony is the leader in 3d development for cinema, broadcast, gaming, and home theater. I'm positive their production TVs will not be the "worst" out there.


----------



## Holy bear




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dave300zx* /forum/post/18441799
> 
> 
> I love how Sony's 3d is the "worst". Their 3d TVs are not even available to the public. Any TVs that the public have seen are most likely prototypes. Sony is the leader in 3d development for cinema, broadcast, gaming, and home theater. I'm positive their production TVs will not be the "worst" out there.
> 
> 
> I think Noobz1lla and Holy bear sit around and brainstorm bullsh1t to start flame wars on internet forums. How about contributing something worth while for a change?



I don't think C7000 and VT20 are "prototypes".


I'm not "faking" anything. I did give the link to an article in a Japanese websit that indicates Sony's 3D LCD TVs have the worst PQ.


----------



## lcaillo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jbug* /forum/post/18440398
> 
> 
> Wow! What a limited statement to make. So folks wearing glasses and playing games are worried about how they look. I can see someone saying, "let me hurry up and finish this game before a fine lady comes in." Your statement sounds so cavemanish.



So we can make fun of cavemen, but we can't make fun of 3d gamers? Are they really that different?


----------



## ehlarson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NOOBZ1LLA* /forum/post/18438045
> 
> 
> Am I wrong?



I'd say there are lots of technologies that are at least as bad. I know because I've owned some of them.


Quadraphonic sound.

The old RCA capacitive disks.

8 Track Tapes.

Apple Hockey Puck Mouse.

Microsoft Bob.

The Brockabrella.

DVD-RAM drives.


3d? Who knows how it will turn out but I'd say it's got a chance to join the above group.


----------



## dave300zx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Holy bear* /forum/post/18441960
> 
> 
> I don't think C7000 and VT20 are "prototypes".
> 
> 
> I'm not "faking" anything. I did give the link to an article in a Japanese websit that indicates Sony's 3D LCD TVs have the worst PQ.



I was referring to Sony.


----------



## mastermaybe

Really, I'm not sure how you could consider the new version of in-home 3D tech "most pointless mainstream technology ever" in any sense of the word. As, like it or not, it still is ADVANCED from any other form of 3D that the public has ever been subjected to. Heck, even when contrasted with existing HD tech, it still really only serves as a potential compliment...not a degradation of existing technology.


Again, I'm still not terribly impressed by it, but it CERTAINLY is beyond what we've had in the home over the last 30-40 years.


James


----------



## scorcho




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kittycarole* /forum/post/18438669
> 
> 
> That is what bothers me. I am in the market to buy a new TV to replace my 6 year old 50" Pioneer Elite plasma but I have zero interest in 3D. So what to do? Bite the bullet and pay for something I will never use?



I was having the same issue while shopping for a new LED, I ended up going with the top Samsung from last year the UNb8500 and it has been everything i expected and then some!


----------



## Polydorus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Duke Phillips* /forum/post/18440483
> 
> 
> Fix existing problems before introducing new ones.



Great idea but who ever does it? Microsoft?


----------



## mastermaybe

Perhaps I had a poor demo or two...check here:

http://www.hometheatermag.com/flat-p...ray_3d_player/ 


James


----------



## Steve S

The public at large weren't shouting from the rooftops demanding television in 1939 prior to it's US debut at the New York World's Fair, nor was there a huge clamor for color tv in 1953, VCRs in 1979, DVD in 1997, or HDTV in 1998.


It's the capitalist system that's worked so well for us in this country for the last few hundred years--create a demand where none exists and reap the profits. Once the last big thing has become a mainstream commodity it's time for something new.


As with any new tech there's a lot of resistance at first and not every new whizbang idea takes off--there are always tradeoffs that some find unacceptable.


One of the benefits of modern electronics is that something like 3D capability can be added to a tv without negatively affecting it's performance as a 2D set and at minimal real cost. As in all prior cases there's an early adopter penalty but in a year or two 3D capability will be as common (and relatively cheap) as 120hz is now. It'll be just another feature that may or may not be used by the customer, just as pip was on past sets.


Was I upset that the KV35XBR48 tv I bought back in '98 was capable of displaying 9 channels at once--a feature I paid for but never used? A little but that was what I had to do in order to get the performance I wanted.


The intro price of Samsung's UN55C7000 is two hundred less than the B7000 was at this time last year--some "penalty". There's nothing stopping a buyer from purchasing the set now and waiting for the prices of the necessary ancillary equipment to dip, probably about the same time something resembling a decent selection of content becomes available.


I had my first HD capable tv for 2 years before any significant amount of HD content was available to watch on it, in the meantime I basked in the glory of native 480p anamorphic dvd.


----------



## Timothy91

3D is really a pain to implement in it's current form. I couldn't see myself going out of my way to spend hours with a pair of glasses on my head for an "effect" that wears off within 20 minutes. The brain adjusts to what you're watching, whether 2-D or 3-D. People usually find 3-D a huge pain in the butt that simply isn't necessary.


----------



## CaptinCrunch




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve S* /forum/post/18442819
> 
> 
> The public at large weren't shouting from the rooftops demanding television in 1939 prior to it's US debut at the New York World's Fair, nor was there a huge clamor for color tv in 1953, VCRs in 1979, DVD in 1997, or HDTV in 1998.
> 
> 
> It's the capitalist system that's worked so well for us in this country for the last few hundred years--create a demand where none exists and reap the profits. Once the last big thing has become a mainstream commodity it's time for something new.
> 
> 
> As with any new tech there's a lot of resistance at first and not every new whizbang idea takes off--there are always tradeoffs that some find unacceptable.
> 
> 
> One of the benefits of modern electronics is that something like 3D capability can be added to a tv without negatively affecting it's performance as a 2D set and at minimal real cost. As in all prior cases there's an early adopter penalty but in a year or two 3D capability will be as common (and relatively cheap) as 120hz is now. It'll be just another feature that may or may not be used by the customer, just as pip was on past sets.
> 
> 
> Was I upset that the KV35XBR48 tv I bought back in '98 was capable of displaying 9 channels at once--a feature I paid for but never used? A little but that was what I had to do in order to get the performance I wanted.
> 
> 
> The intro price of Samsung's UN55C7000 is two hundred less than the B7000 was at this time last year--some "penalty". There's nothing stopping a buyer from purchasing the set now and waiting for the prices of the necessary ancillary equipment to dip, probably about the same time something resembling a decent selection of content becomes available.
> 
> 
> I had my first HD capable tv for 2 years before any significant amount of HD content was available to watch on it, in the meantime I basked in the glory of native 480p anamorphic dvd.



Very true statement, in a few short years manufactors will drop the "3D Ready" label from it's sets, the same way they dropped the "HD Ready" label, as 90% of the sets made will be able to show some type of 3D content. Then it just becomes another TV on the shelf.


So whats next? 2160P, 600hz tri-color OLED LCD, 3D w/o glasses, on 72 inch panels at a cost of $2500


----------



## FloridaDude

I agree with the OP, 3D TV pretty much sucks.


I went to Best Buy and tested the 3D TV a few days ago for myself.

Panasonic setup with the glasses, in a darkened room facing a wall.


The 3D effect was actually pretty cute; it's not as good as the old Disney 3D theaters, but it does give a novel feeling of depth and space; they had a coral reef scene playing and the little fish really seemed to "float" off the screen. Reminds me of the little View-Master 3D gizmos we used to have as kids. The images look flat, but they are layered for depth. (yawn).










The screen is still too dark; 20 years of 3D imaging and that is still a killer for me; it's like looking at a TV through a thin black veil. For some—after all these years of bitching at manufacturers about wanting the brightest, clearest, picture quality—going back to this retro 3D stuff will be a joke without a punch line. I would have moved off to the side and tested the viewing angle, but the glasses were tethered to a podium for security.


After checking out the Panasonic, I drifted over to the Samsung area; I would have been able to actually view the Samsung display, but unfortunately after only 10 days the glasses were already broken, and they were waiting for new ones to be delivered to the store. Yes, that's right they were broken. That said a lot about the glasses (which by the way are both retarded AND gay).










The "3D effect" has always sucked in the theaters, and it still sucks for anything more than a few minutes of "ooohs and ahhhs." I think kids and early adopters will love this, but those who demand better picture quality WILL get tired of it quick. Bottom line; it's cute, but I couldn't see any reason to take my 8500 back. This is only my opinion on a forum, so please do not be offended. If they figure out a way to deliver this effect sans the darkening glasses, it could have a serious future. Otherwise, it's doomed to remain a seldom-used gimmick that creates darkened images and headaches.


----------



## MrEastSide

I've seen 3D from Mitsubishi and Samsung. Neither of them impressed me. My nose and ears hurt after wearing the glasses for about two minutes. It also didn't look very good. I don't care how much the technology advances, I just have no desire to watch anything in 3D. It looks fake and unnatural. It's kind of like cranking up all the motion enhancements on LCD TVs. Looks dumb and gets annoying after about a minute. I may be interested in 3D again when they have technology that doesn't use glasses. But, since I see that being at least 20 years away, I'll stick with normal TVs. Not to mention 3D does nothing but strain my eyes and make me feel tired and want to close them.


----------



## NOOBZ1LLA

Do you want to know why major HDTV makers are pushing 3D tech? I just figured it out. 3D technology is not new, Hollywood tried to use 3D to differentiate itself from TV in the 60's in a bid to get people to start going to the movies again.


Now at that point there was no way for TV makers to give the consumer anything similar to a 3D experience. Times have changed and now modern TV makers can provide 3D tech to the public. Now what they seem to forgot what everyone seems to forget is that 3D movies were a gimmick to get people in. After a few very short years everyone forgot about 3D. For almost 40 years there hasn't been a rebirth in 3D. So makes you think that this time will be any different? So here we are today, a new dawn of 3D movies. Lets see where the public's interest is in 5 years. If 3D TV is still relevant then it will be here to stay.


I predict that 3DTV will be the Betamax of our generation.



As for the guy and his Avatar argument. You have to realize there is a difference in the medium of a projected 3D image and a 3D image produced by a LCD. I would have thought that was obvious. The theater glasses weigh about 1/50th as much as a 3DTV pair.


The only legitimate option for a serious 3D enthusiast is to setup 2 projectors. I forget all the details but I think I saw a review on Tom's and that tech looks more promising, albeit expensive.


----------



## NOOBZ1LLA




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ehlarson* /forum/post/18442280
> 
> 
> I'd say there are lots of technologies that are at least as bad. I know because I've owned some of them.
> 
> 
> Quadraphonic sound.
> 
> The old RCA capacitive disks.
> 
> 8 Track Tapes.
> 
> Apple Hockey Puck Mouse.
> 
> Microsoft Bob.
> 
> The Brockabrella.
> 
> DVD-RAM drives.
> 
> 
> 3d? Who knows how it will turn out but I'd say it's got a chance to join the above group.



What about laserdiscs?

I forgot all about those till I started reading your list.


My original post said laserdics. Lol.


----------



## topr

If one thing is clear, two people can sit side by side and walk away with two different opinions..."EVERY 3D DISCUSSION" in this forum proves that so at what point does it become pointless to debate whether or not it improves or detracts from the viewing experience. Should manufactures focus more on existing issues...absolutely, but a 3D display even in it's earliest stages isn't costing that much more as an added feature and given a very short time it will be even less. If you don't like it don't use it.


----------



## sharkcohen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NOOBZ1LLA* /forum/post/18438045
> 
> 
> Have you watched 3D TV demos on LCD's? Were you blown away? Did you feel a revolution on the horizon in how people receive visual media?



Yes, yes, and yes.


----------



## FloridaDude

Interesting article, has pros and cons...


"The trouble with 3D in movies is that Hollywood is confusing novelty with sustainable appeal. Audiences will quickly tire of 3D pandering -- and of wearing goofy cardboard glasses.


And that's one of the problems with 3D as it's currently set to be offered in consumer electronics. Executives smell money. But they just don't get 3D.


"We went from standard definition to high definition, and [3D] is the natural next step." HDlogix president Jim Spinella said recently, perfectly encapsulating the conventional wisdom among 3D advocates.


That statement sounds reasonable. But it all hinges on what "3D" means. If "3D" means goofy glasses, then, no, going from not wearing goofy glasses to wearing them is not a "natural next step." And HDlogix's own technology helped demonstrate that.


A Dallas Cowboys football game featured the "first live 3D broadcast ever to be shown on giant video screens at a major sporting event." The idea was to showcase HDlogix 3D technology. At halftime, the giant screen switched to 3D mode, and the fans were invited to put on the 3D glasses that were handed out at the entrance.


The intent was to show the second half of the game in 3D. But many fans refused to wear the glasses, and saw a blurry picture. Some of those who did wear them felt nauseous. The crowd booed. After a few uncomfortable minutes, the video was switched back to normal, 2D mode. The crowed cheered.


This is the horrible reality of current-generation 3D. People cheer when you turn it off. That's too bad, because several industries are throwing a lot of money at it..."
http://www.techworld.com.au/article/...will_fail_2010


----------



## NOOBZ1LLA




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FloridaDude* /forum/post/18444308
> 
> 
> Interesting article, has pros and cons...
> 
> 
> "The trouble with 3D in movies is that Hollywood is confusing novelty with sustainable appeal. Audiences will quickly tire of 3D pandering -- and of wearing goofy cardboard glasses.
> 
> 
> And that's one of the problems with 3D as it's currently set to be offered in consumer electronics. Executives smell money. But they just don't get 3D.
> 
> 
> "We went from standard definition to high definition, and [3D] is the natural next step." HDlogix president Jim Spinella said recently, perfectly encapsulating the conventional wisdom among 3D advocates.
> 
> 
> That statement sounds reasonable. But it all hinges on what "3D" means. If "3D" means goofy glasses, then, no, going from not wearing goofy glasses to wearing them is not a "natural next step." And HDlogix's own technology helped demonstrate that.
> 
> 
> A Dallas Cowboys football game featured the "first live 3D broadcast ever to be shown on giant video screens at a major sporting event." The idea was to showcase HDlogix 3D technology. At halftime, the giant screen switched to 3D mode, and the fans were invited to put on the 3D glasses that were handed out at the entrance.
> 
> 
> The intent was to show the second half of the game in 3D. But many fans refused to wear the glasses, and saw a blurry picture. Some of those who did wear them felt nauseous. The crowd booed. After a few uncomfortable minutes, the video was switched back to normal, 2D mode. The crowed cheered.
> 
> 
> This is the horrible reality of current-generation 3D. People cheer when you turn it off. That's too bad, because several industries are throwing a lot of money at it..."
> http://www.techworld.com.au/article/...will_fail_2010










exactly


----------



## FloridaDude




----------



## happy nightmares

Some of the anti-3D people are silly.


Especially the guys who don't own a 3DTV and have zero experience with 3D in their own home. These are the last people that should be giving advice or opinions on this topic, and yet some are now going from thread to thread in the forum, posting the same rubbish over and over.


I personally don't know, or care, if 3D will be a success in the home. But it's ridiculous for people to be declaring doom-and-gloom failure at this early stage. Especially people with no experience using the technology at home.


A guy spends 5 minutes watching a demo in-store, and suddenly proclaims 3D a failure? It's utterly ridiculous. So please excuse the majority of us if we don't follow that line of thinking.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *happy nightmares* /forum/post/18446396
> 
> 
> Some of the anti-3D people are silly.
> 
> 
> Especially the guys who don't own a 3DTV and have zero experience with 3D in their own home. These are the last people that should be giving advice or opinions on this topic, and yet some are now going from thread to thread in the forum, posting the same rubbish over and over.
> 
> 
> I personally don't know, or care, if 3D will be a success in the home. But it's ridiculous for people to be declaring doom-and-gloom failure at this early stage. Especially people with no experience using the technology at home.
> 
> 
> A guy spends 5 minutes watching a demo in-store, and suddenly proclaims 3D a failure? It's utterly ridiculous. So please excuse the majority of us if we don't follow that line of thinking.



3D is a hype,being against all kind of hypes is healthy.


----------



## FloridaDude




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *happy nightmares* /forum/post/18446396
> 
> 
> Some of the anti-3D people are silly.



Well, some of us think 3DTV is silly. There is a difference between making comments about products vs. people. By the way, why are you throwing labels at forum members who voice their opinions? It seems to me you are the one who chastized others just for using words like "retarded" or "gay" for the PRODUCTS, and now here you are; making judgments on people and calling them silly? Oh brother... LaoChe is right, you need to lighten up.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *happy nightmares* /forum/post/18446396
> 
> 
> Especially the guys who don't own a 3DTV and have zero experience with 3D in their own home. These are the last people that should be giving advice or opinions on this topic...



Excuse me, I'm sorry if you are offended by other opinions, but some of us prefer not to HAVE that in our home, and we can give our opinions on anything we want; please get over it, and get happy, happy!


----------



## happy nightmares

Florida Dude,


You are one of the most vocal anti-3D people around here. In fact, it's getting annoying and on the borderline of being SPAM. Posting the same crap in multiple threads. Dude, you need to get-over this 3D thing. We all get it. You don't like it. That's fine. But why do you feel the need to constantly go around trashing it? Did the inventor of 3D kill your puppy or something?


Actually, I think I already know the answer to that question.


Let me take a wild guess... you purchaed a new TV within the past 30-60 days, and it does _not_ have 3D.


Simple answer. Yes or No?


----------



## spyboy

As long as 3D does not compromise the current and future *basic* performance of LCD and Plasma, there is nothing we can do if we want the best that Panasonic (and to a similar degree, Samsung), have to offer.


The VT20, and the forthcoming VT25s seem like they are going to be excellent TVs. I am sick of hearing about fluctuating black levels on the new Panasonics.


In their TV blog, Consumer Reports has been made aware of the rising black level of 2009 models, and they know to watch the VT 20, and VT 25s for rising black level.


It's going to be roughly a couple months before they post their final test results, but preliminarily, they are raving about the best black levels since the Kuro, (their words), great picture detail, and great performance with motion blur.


3D doesn't appeal to me since I already wear glasses, but it is going to have to play out for the next few years.


So, if I wanted a new TV, I'd be all over the VT20, VT25's, till I learn of any wide-spread problem.


----------



## happy nightmares




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *happy nightmares* /forum/post/18448837
> 
> 
> Let me take a wild guess... you purchaed a new TV within the past 30-60 days, and it does _not_ have 3D.
> 
> 
> Simple answer. Yes or No?



Never mind FloridaDude, it took me less than 5 minutes to find the answer myself = *Yes*.


You just recently purchased a Samsung B8500 (_so did I by the way_).


I think I understand why you are so anti-3D now. You are not just trying to convince *us* 3D sucks. You are trying to convince *yourself*, in order to justify your non-3D purchase. So transparent and obvious. But I think it's cute.










Anyway, I have high hopes for 3D in gaming.


----------



## FloridaDude




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *happy nightmares* /forum/post/18448837
> 
> 
> why do you feel the need to constantly go around trashing it? Did the inventor of 3D kill your puppy or something?



Kill my puppy? LOL, we both picked the same TV and here you are attacking people and calling them silly because they don't like blurry images and dark picture quality? I will be more than happy to answer your question; yes, actually I purchased a great TV and yes, I could take it back if I wanted to tomorrow, but I refuse to because I would never give up my 8500 for blurry images and dark picture quality. It's not personal so don't make it personal; by the way, did people who don't care for blurry images and dark picture quality kill your goldfish or something? Yes or No?


----------



## JoeSony

Apart of whether the current implementation of 3D is a success or not can't be judged for some time. It's a fact that all the manufacturers of TVs are bringing sets, blu-ray players and gaming machines to market on the assumption that it will capture the buying public's interest. Since all the sets due to be released aren't exclusively made for only 3D means the consumers choose whether or not to use that feature, which is a good thing and a win win situation for those that purchase new sets.


----------



## g011um




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FloridaDude* /forum/post/18444308
> 
> 
> "We went from standard definition to high definition, and [3D] is the natural next step."



But we _haven't_ gone to high definition yet! Not even close! How about companies make that first step before trying the next?!


I've had my HD service and HD-PVR for about 4 years. Of the 200+ channels my cable provider has available, about 20-25 are HD. The growth of HD over the last few years (at least in terms of new channels) has been glacial. At this pace we'll be another 5-10 years before the ratio of SD to HD finally shifts.


3D, even in it's current form, seems at least that far away as well. By then the fad will have died out (as it always has).


----------



## JoeSony




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *g011um* /forum/post/18449025
> 
> 
> But we _haven't_ gone to high definition yet! Not even close! How about companies make that first step before trying the next?!
> 
> 
> I've had my HD service and HD-PVR for about 4 years. Of the 200+ channels my cable provider has available, about 20-25 are HD. The growth of HD over the last few years (at least in terms of new channels) has been glacial. At this pace we'll be another 5-10 years before the ratio of SD to HD finally shifts.
> 
> 
> 3D, even in it's current form, seems at least that far away as well. By then the fad will have died out (as it always has).



It does varies by cable provider. I see where DirectTV currently offers over 130 HD channels and DishNetwork will be expanding to over 200.

http://www.hd-report.com/category/hd-channels/


----------



## FloridaDude




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *g011um* /forum/post/18449025
> 
> 
> But we _haven't_ gone to high definition yet! Not even close! How about companies make that first step before trying the next?!



Tell me about it; I agree with you 100%.

Search the forum and you will find that many of the units consumers are buying have "rising blacks," "clouding" and "flashlight" problems, etc. It would be nice if they could deal with the basics before moving ahead with the next best thing.


----------



## topr

...feel the luv. 3D or no 3D, it's the new plasma vs LCD debate. Might as well throw in Coke vs Pepsi for the hat trick of, going to accomplish absolutely nothing debates.


----------



## casey_sdsu

I didn't read through all the replies but if you want to talk marketing gimmicks 3D is nothing compared to every else these companies put out.


3D is at least a new technology that offers a vastly different picture than anything else. Sure you may not care to put on glasses in the morning to watch the news while you get ready in the morning but I bet you will wish you have a 3D set when avatar comes out on bluray.


Talking about gimmicks everyone is head over heels for 240 hz. etc. and most of the time these high refresh rates make the picture look bad because you are watching a video image now that is 90% CG compared to the original recording.


----------



## mgavsf

I agree with a previous poster, make what works better and fix the problems. In my case I also think OLED would have been better for Samsung, etc. to put their resources into. But 3D sells as a gimick and..... you need to buy a 3D player, glasses, movies, etc. All meant to make the companies benefit. I say get OLED going, that will solve problems like refresh rates, then figure out how to do 3D without glasses, oh... but that would mean they can't sell you 3D glasses!


----------



## m3tric




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NOOBZ1LLA* /forum/post/18438045
> 
> 
> 3D TV is nothing more than a blatantly engineered marketing gimmick.
> 
> 
> Am I wrong?



Yes. In short, live sports and video games alone are worth it. Besides, the 2010 sets are being released for cheaper than the ones in 2009, so just think of it as an added bonus. You don't like it - don't use it.


----------



## MrRoy

I was at a local retailer and they had the Samsung 3D setup with Aliens vs Monsters. I thought it was terrible. The image doesn't pop out. The 3D is contained in the bezel of the tv. Felt like I was looking into a diarama. Also, the 24p makes it almost unwatchable.


I am OK with 2D for now.


----------



## Ice Cold




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MrRoy* /forum/post/18450407
> 
> 
> I was at a local retailer and they had the Samsung 3D setup with Aliens vs Monsters. I thought it was terrible. The image doesn't pop out. The 3D is contained in the bezel of the tv. Felt like I was looking into a diarama. Also, the 24p makes it almost unwatchable.
> 
> 
> I am OK with 2D for now.





I will second all of those comments.



For years we have been wanting Vibrant rich deep colors, The shaded glasses "Dim" everything.


Maybe at home it will be less objectionable in a dark room.



3D really needs a BIG TV.


99% of out 3D experience has been AVATAR is an IMAX Theater (or what I call IMAX Mini) unless you went to a FULL 5 story tall IMAX.



But the narrative thats being sold is that "if you liked AVATAR in 3D you will need a 3D TV"


And thats all thats being said. By TV News Media and Print. All bought off. Wake up people.


Now I am not in the 3D is a "Fad" camp. No its here to stay.



But you need a Really BIG TV if not the effect is ruined or badly limited.


To me it reminds me of a Kids Puppet show, or a 3D View MAster from when I was a kid.


And wait for all the "specially optimized" Speakers for 3D.


----------



## LaoChe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *m3tric* /forum/post/18449902
> 
> 
> Yes. In short, live sports and video games alone are worth it. Besides, the 2010 sets are being released for cheaper than the ones in 2009, so just think of it as an added bonus. You don't like it - don't use it.



Yep. That's the perfect way to look at it if you are in the market for a new TV. However, if you have a great TV now, I see no reason to ditch it for a 3D TV.


----------



## NOOBZ1LLA

^agree.


It's an added bonus. Don't like it don't use it. Although I would have preferred resources got put into OLED tv instead.


I didn't mean to start a flame war, and I wasn't looking to troll. I just made a thread representing my opinion after finally experiencing 3D TV.

It is what is it.


I just think that TV makers are giving the public too little credit. Instead of fixing existing problems, they designed a new paradigm to sell a whole new set of products.


----------



## obeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *g011um* /forum/post/18449025
> 
> 
> But we _haven't_ gone to high definition yet! Not even close! How about companies make that first step before trying the next?!
> 
> 
> I've had my HD service and HD-PVR for about 4 years. Of the 200+ channels my cable provider has available, about 20-25 are HD. The growth of HD over the last few years (at least in terms of new channels) has been glacial. At this pace we'll be another 5-10 years before the ratio of SD to HD finally shifts.



Exactly.


It is even worse than that: MOST of those channels/stations are 720p, and *there are NO 1080p broadcast stations*. We have had 1080p sets for nearly 5 years, and the only true 1080p content that is readily available is BluRay, and BluRay players only dropped to $100 about three months ago.


The idea that a vast store of _true_ 3D content is right around the corner is a pipe dream. I would not pay one extra cent for 3d technology now, and I would not regret any non-3D TV purchase.


In 2005, I had to think long and hard about getting a 1080p set vs. 720p/1080i. People were saying the same things then about 1080p that we are saying about 3d now. Don't believe me? AVS is a vast archive of those discussions. In retrospect, a person who bought a 720p set in 2005 MISSED NOTHING. A person who bought 1080p in 2005 paid a premium FOR NOTHING.


----------



## uscboy

Life is 3D in case you haven't realized that yet.


Anyone who thinks 3DTV in one form or another, one improvement or another, isn't here

to stay is very short-sighted. Black and white TV worked just fine and got the point

across, but turns out life is in color too.


3DTV is a natural progression, just give it time.


----------



## chaz01

(mostly) good debate from differing view points.


----------



## Deja Vu

I've seen the 3D demos and was shocked by how good they look. Of course it only looked amazing when both the 3D BD player and 3D T.V. were both in 3D mode and the disc was the aliens vs. monsters 3D demo copy. I also saw it when only the T.V. was in 3D mode - not the same effect. When properly set up there were several instances where images reached way out of the screen. My only complaints - I thought the black level on the Samsung could have been better and I noticed some crosstalk in some scenes. I also tried the 2D to 3D conversion with several BD discs and liked it quite a lot - adds subtle, but very real depth to the image. I would prefer a 3D projector solution; however, if that doesn't pan out in the near future I'll be buying a very large 3D set that has 2D to 3D conversion. For those who don't like 3D, well, why would you care since you don't need to view content this way. For me, I can't wait for more content and different solutions - having HD resolution and now very good 3D all within the last five years or so is very, very nice!


----------



## chaz01




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Deja Vu* /forum/post/18452096
> 
> 
> For those who don't like 3D, well, why would you care since you don't need to view content this way. For me, I can't wait for more content and different solutions.



Some of the concern on these forums is that resources spent on 3d could have been spent on improving/perfecting existing offering.


----------



## Deja Vu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chaz01* /forum/post/18452119
> 
> 
> Some of the concern on these forums is that resources spent on 3d could have been spent on improving/perfecting existing offering.



Supposedly the new 3D T.V.s (some of them) actually have improved the 2D image quality over last year's models so what is there to complain about? Maybe the manufactures should have got black levels right before they put so many resources into higher resolution panels. I don't hear anyone complaining about that! I suspect some just are not comfortable with change. I actually know some individuals who don't own or use a computer and wish the whole "thing" would just go away - dream on. Many here can't understand why not everyone is embracing Blu-Ray over DVD, at least consumers who own HD sets, yet have problems with some people here who embrace 3D! DVD was seen as a threat to LD owners. HD DVD owners fought it out with BD supporters and now those who support the status quo (being 2D) feel the need to fight it out with the "progressives"!


----------



## chaz01

Well, I for one would like to see all channels in HD. And why not 1080p?


I'm with ya on black levels too.


Surely some people aren't comfortable with change, probably most.


There are also folks who like getting things right before jumping on to something else.


I don't want to fight out here and let many posts go unreplied to due to this concern.


Could 3d be lining up sides like the lcd vs. plasma groups?


----------



## mgkdragn

Love it or hate it, the makers are going to push 3-D at us. We'll vote with our pocketbooks, just like everything else. That's the beauty of the market. If our money makes it a hit, it will get better and better, just like everything else.


I'm not going to sweat it and honestly could care less. I won't be in line for a new set.


That said, there is a dramatic difference between home viewing and a fully equiped actual theater. Avatar set the bar, sure... however, Avatar on a 42" screen is a vastly different experience. This is really the issue.


Myself, as someone else mentioned... I'd like to see OLED further developed... I want my own Holo Deck.


----------



## mgkdragn

I'll add one more tidbit now that I've finished my coffee and my brain is kicking in... for many years, various makers have come out with "goggles" that have a small LED/LCD mounted in front of your eyes that are designed to mimic a large display screen. Why have these never taken off and gone mainstream..?? It seems like a good idea. Have a theater the size of some goggles. Or 3-D glasses.


It's a hassle, that's why. Sure, if no glasses required 3-D come along, who knows..?? And, if they are working on no glasses required 3-D, why buy into the current tech..??


I'll add this as well... with streaming off the cloud being what I'm sure many of us will agree is the future direction of content delivery, how does that play on the 3-D standard and specs..??


----------



## Timothy91




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FloridaDude* /forum/post/18444308
> 
> 
> The intent was to show the second half of the game in 3D. But many fans refused to wear the glasses, and saw a blurry picture. Some of those who did wear them felt nauseous. The crowd booed. After a few uncomfortable minutes, the video was switched back to normal, 2D mode. The crowed cheered.
> 
> 
> This is the horrible reality of current-generation 3D. People cheer when you turn it off. That's too bad, because several industries are throwing a lot of money at it..."
> http://www.techworld.com.au/article/...will_fail_2010



This is something the "pro 3D" crowd should really read and think about. People can like 3D but it won't be appropriate in all situations. Wearing 3D glasses is a bother. The screen has to encompass the field of view or it's going to look 'odd'. 3D really belongs in a theater where the screens are huge and the ambient surroundings are black/low light. At home and at bars, 3D, just gets in the way of normal living and interacting. It requires someone to totally zone everyone else out. That's why the public 3D sporting event broadcast failed. A crowd must interact and be social.


Again, the ONLY way this technology becomes viable is if/when the glasses are no longer needed. And that's the MINIMUM standard. I would also add that most home screens would have to cover the whole wall to be enveloping enough for most people. Which is why 3D has only really worked in a movie theater with a large screen.


----------



## mgkdragn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Timothy91* /forum/post/18452572
> 
> 
> This is something the "pro 3D" crowd should really read and think about. People can like 3D but it won't be appropriate in all situations. Wearing 3D glasses is a bother. The screen has to encompass the field of view or it's going to look 'odd'. 3D really belongs in a theater where the screens are huge and the ambient surroundings are black/low light. At home and at bars, 3D, just gets in the way of normal living and interacting. It requires someone to totally zone everyone else out. That's why the public 3D sporting event broadcast failed. A crowd must interact and be social.
> 
> 
> Again, the ONLY way this technology becomes viable is if/when the glasses are no longer needed. And that's the MINIMUM standard. I would also add that most home screens would have to cover the whole wall to be enveloping enough for most people. Which is why 3D has only really worked in a movie theater with a large screen.



Good points... I'll add that going to a properly equiped cinema for a night out to take a look at the latest theater tech, a la 3-D is a novelty experience, and that's helping drive the hype. Home viewing, different animal.


----------



## rollo131

Due to an eye condition (amblyopia) I am unable to view movies in 3D. Therefore, I agree with the original poster that 3D TV is pointless and the manufacturers should not bother making them.


----------



## JoeyW

I have a question. The consumer 3d tv's use a technology that requires mechanical 3d glasses that cost about $150. The professional 3d tv's only require the same glasses that you would use to see a Real 3D movie, and they cost about $3 (going by the extra cost for 3D).


Why can't the consumers have that? Why do us buyers have to shell out all that extra money for an extra pair for a friend (or a replacement)? Would you pay that extra money just so someone else can enjoy 3d with you?


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN

Look folks! 3D is just a feature and added bonus. Lets not sit here and pretend that 3D already replaced 2D TVs. Some of you doesn't even have a ground to their claims, attack the feature all you want, some have valid points and some attack it like no tomorrow. I cannot believe that such feature will make people divided and get too political about it, it's very silly and pointless. Whats the deal with people claiming they will not buy 3D sets? Are you folks realize that by next year or two that most TVs if not all TVs will have 3D capabilities?? just non sense if you ask me. YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE TO PAY for 3D glasses or 3D blu ray player *but* may only upgrade your TV with newer one that may happen to be *3D READY* TV, so i guess if you guys see the word 3D ready with the TV then you all will never upgrade to a newer TV and wait for 3D TVs to fail?????





Some folks giving the impression that the traditional 2D TVs are no longer exist and that they need to adopt to a new change with the newer 3D sets, which is totally insane.. 3D push will continue whether anyone like it or not, but 3D needs to be improved and people to watch without glasses, period! With how technology move fast, im confident that 3D will get better by the next few years, but in the main time 2D is to stay for a long time, im not sure what is the big confusion about that. YOU pay PREMIUM price for anything that is new, Just like the first production of HD Ready TVs and even full HD TVs, they were priced very heavily more than you can imagine but prices went down within time....


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Scopeboy* /forum/post/18438730
> 
> 
> It's funny that you mentioned sports programming..........and you are right about that. However, during the Cowboys/Chargers game this past season, they showed fans at Texas Stadium game in 3D. I guess this is the technology that is going to change how we view sports.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5 minutes into the 3rd quarter, people started moaning and taking off their glasses. If this is the attention span with 3D and 80,000 people, I hope it gets a whole lot better or interesting.......because this was NOT a good sign.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Timothy91* /forum/post/18452572
> 
> 
> This is something the "pro 3D" crowd should really read and think about.



Not really. The 3D used at Texas Stadium was anaglyph. For a variety of reasons, it looked poor. What will be used in the home is completely different.


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeyW* /forum/post/18453801
> 
> 
> I have a question. The consumer 3d tv's use a technology that requires mechanical 3d glasses that cost about $150. The professional 3d tv's only require the same glasses that you would use to see a Real 3D movie, and they cost about $3 (going by the extra cost for 3D).
> 
> 
> Why can't the consumers have that? Why do us buyers have to shell out all that extra money for an extra pair for a friend (or a replacement)? Would you pay that extra money just so someone else can enjoy 3d with you?



Home 3D = Active Stereo

Theater 3D = Passive Stereo.


Same result but different technology.


Passive Stereo viewing can be done at home, but the display would be way too expensive at this point. Active Stereo is the least expensive way, even considering the cost of the glasses.


----------



## Ken H

Off topic comments removed.


Topic moved to 3D Forum.


----------



## JOHNnDENVER

The only people I see saying they hate it or have no interest are on intrnet forums.


Everybody I know went to see Avitar and liked the 3D aspect. Many people I know have seen the demo now at Best Buy and liked that too.


I was decently impressed with cruddy red and green glasses 3D in my theater, I know I am going to like screening higher end 3D.


Choices. I surely can see no reason to deny better quality 3D in the home / home theater experience to those that want it.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeyW* /forum/post/18453801
> 
> 
> I have a question. The consumer 3d tv's use a technology that requires mechanical 3d glasses that cost about $150. The professional 3d tv's only require the same glasses that you would use to see a Real 3D movie, and they cost about $3 (going by the extra cost for 3D).
> 
> 
> Why can't the consumers have that? Why do us buyers have to shell out all that extra money for an extra pair for a friend (or a replacement)? Would you pay that extra money just so someone else can enjoy 3d with you?



You can have one - the 46" JVC 3D LCD uses cheap passive glasses and it costs $9000. And the 3D is Half HD per eye because it is based on the Xpol technology.


Or you can get the Panasonic 25" 3D LCD monitor, also an Xpol tech display. May need to jury rig an input. It costs $9900 and uses cheap passive glasses.


So which would you like to buy?


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *obeck* /forum/post/18451911
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> It is even worse than that: MOST of those channels/stations are 720p, and *there are NO 1080p broadcast stations*. We have had 1080p sets for nearly 5 years, and the only true 1080p content that is readily available is BluRay, and BluRay players only dropped to $100 about three months ago.
> 
> 
> The idea that a vast store of _true_ 3D content is right around the corner is a pipe dream. I would not pay one extra cent for 3d technology now, and I would not regret any non-3D TV purchase.
> 
> 
> In 2005, I had to think long and hard about getting a 1080p set vs. 720p/1080i. People were saying the same things then about 1080p that we are saying about 3d now. Don't believe me? AVS is a vast archive of those discussions. In retrospect, a person who bought a 720p set in 2005 MISSED NOTHING. A person who bought 1080p in 2005 paid a premium FOR NOTHING.


Hogwash!









http://www.cnet.com/1990-7874_1-5119938-1.html


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rollo131* /forum/post/18453033
> 
> 
> Due to an eye condition (amblyopia) I am unable to view movies in 3D. Therefore, I agree with the original poster that 3D TV is pointless and the manufacturers should not bother making them.



LOL! So you can't see 3D thus forth no one else should have it?


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ice Cold* /forum/post/18450568
> 
> 
> I will second all of those comments.
> 
> 
> 
> For years we have been wanting Vibrant rich deep colors, The shaded glasses "Dim" everything.
> 
> 
> Maybe at home it will be less objectionable in a dark room.
> 
> 
> 
> 3D really needs a BIG TV.
> 
> 
> 99% of out 3D experience has been AVATAR is an IMAX Theater (or what I call IMAX Mini) unless you went to a FULL 5 story tall IMAX.
> 
> 
> 
> But the narrative thats being sold is that "if you liked AVATAR in 3D you will need a 3D TV"
> 
> 
> And thats all thats being said. By TV News Media and Print. All bought off. Wake up people.
> 
> 
> Now I am not in the 3D is a "Fad" camp. No its here to stay.
> 
> 
> 
> But you need a Really BIG TV if not the effect is ruined or badly limited.
> 
> 
> To me it reminds me of a Kids Puppet show, or a 3D View MAster from when I was a kid.
> 
> 
> And wait for all the "specially optimized" Speakers for 3D.



All you need to do is sit closer to the display. That compensates for not having a BIG 3DTV.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NOOBZ1LLA* /forum/post/18450804
> 
> 
> ^agree.
> 
> 
> It's an added bonus. Don't like it don't use it. Although I would have preferred resources got put into OLED tv instead.
> 
> 
> I didn't mean to start a flame war, and I wasn't looking to troll. I just made a thread representing my opinion after finally experiencing 3D TV.
> 
> It is what is it.
> 
> 
> I just think that TV makers are giving the public too little credit. Instead of fixing existing problems, they designed a new paradigm to sell a whole new set of products.



Fix what problems? You going to blame the display manufacturers for HDTV's short comings?


Pick SMPTE or Comcast or DirecTV or Dish or Time Warner, etc if you want someone to blame.


----------



## JOHNnDENVER

I don't think you really miss out on anything even if you choose a 720p display today.

For me? It's ache'n to OAR. If the presentation is natively 3D, I want to be able to screen it in 3D. Now before we had to use red / green glasses, to say there is no improvement over the only previously available method with the new 3D BD or 3D Broadcasts even with active glasses is flying in the face of reason.


----------



## Ken H

So much misinformation.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *obeck* /forum/post/18451911
> 
> 
> MOST of those channels/stations are 720p, and *there are NO 1080p broadcast stations*.



Most HD channels are 1080i, not 720p ( http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=164671 ), and 1080p was not designed for linear HD channels; it was included in the ATSC standards for film based material, like HD movies.



> Quote:
> The idea that a vast store of _true_ 3D content is right around the corner is a pipe dream.



No one is saying that. No one, no where.



> Quote:
> In retrospect, a person who bought a 720p set in 2005 MISSED NOTHING. A person who bought 1080p in 2005 paid a premium FOR NOTHING.



Nothing except years of better HD image quality. Any of the HD channels can be deinterlaced and viewed in 1080p.


To each their own, but let's at least be accurate with the info we post.


----------



## Splicer010

I am surprised the the Sony is considered the worst 3D sets. The 3D set I saw in a local Sony Style store looked really good as far as I was concerned. The polar bear clip was outstanding and the video game demo looked much more fun to play. I did remark about the glasses and mt disdain for them in another thread, but I believe the desired effect was brought about wonderfully.


A local amusement park has an attraction that is a 3D feature where the film is Sponge Bob Square Pants in 3D and motion seating that rises,falls, left right, forward, back and really is the ultimate in experienceing the 'like you are there' experience. In order to see in 3D you use cheap glasses that are light weight and have the appearence of sunglasses. Much more comfortable than the Sony glasses I tried. But the Sony 3D demo most closely resembled the Sponge Bob experience, minus the motion seats of course.


And to answer the OP question, no, 3D is not "most pointless mainstream technology ever". It may be 'lame', it might be 'stupid' but that depends on the person as to their feelings about the technology. I agree it is just another way to get more money from consumers for a niche product, but that is what business is about, how to seperate money from consumers. And while folks may not be shouting from their rooftops their desire for 3D, like everything else it comes down to supply and demand. If there is a strong enough demand for a product, no matter what that product may be, someone, somewhere will supply it. Myself, I can do without and as long as I can still watch television as I have for the past 45+ years, I'll be as happy as a chesire cat. At least with the current 3D technology. Now once the technology has progressed to the point of direct view/glasses free 3D, I might change my mind, as I am sure most people, including the OP himself, will.


----------



## hifiguru




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NOOBZ1LLA* /forum/post/18438045
> 
> 
> It came to my attention today after visiting my local Sony Style store that 3D TV's are the most pointless mainstream technology ever.
> 
> 
> How did this happen? When did consumers get on top of rooftops and start screaming for 3D capable TV's in their living room? I don't think that ever actually happened.
> 
> 
> It was like one day a bunch of major corporations got together and were like hey we are going to tell the American sheeple they want 3D Tv's. But even the most greedy CEO has to be scratching his head trying to understand how a person would want to willingly wear a heavy pair of heavy glasses for hours at a time. Do you really think you can make it through Lord of the Rings with those things on?
> 
> 
> 
> First of all the technology itself is flawed. Have you watched 3D TV demos on LCD's? Were you blown away? Did you feel a revolution on the horizon in how people receive visual media?
> 
> 
> My biggest complaint really is that the 3D effect itself looks dinky and cheap. It reminds me of this toy I had when I was a kid. You know the one it was red and you put it up to your face and looked into it. It came with those circular paper discs with slides in them. You put the disc in the top and it had a lever you pull on that would switch to the next image. The 3D effect produced by the top LCD's today is similar to a childs toy from the 1980s.
> 
> 
> I really don't understand what everyone is so excited about. I'd rather have a local dimming LED/LCD TV without having to pay a premium for 3D ready, since as far as I know there is no 2010 flagship model minus 3D capability.
> 
> 
> 3D TV is nothing more than a blatantly engineered marketing gimmick.
> 
> 
> Am I wrong?



In a word YES....


I remember selling the first Fujitsu and Pioneer plasmas in 1997 for $14K and $25K respectively and all of the people who came in and said this is retarted. Who needs a flat TV, why do I need HDTV when I can only watch 5 videos played on a WVHS machine, what kind of idiots do you think we are, and my current 40" tube is plenty.


I agree it is not perfect, it is rather clunky, there is not much content, but what if the manufacturers had not been "greedy" in the mid 90's and said who needs this HDTV and flat screen marketing hype? Even worse, what is this color garbage, this looks just fine in black and white.


Enjoy your 3 channels on a 10" black and white console.


----------



## Ken H

Topic title edited.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Splicer010* /forum/post/18455131
> 
> 
> I am surprised the the Sony is considered the worst 3D sets. The 3D set I saw in a local Sony Style store looked really good as far as I was concerned. The polar bear clip was outstanding and the video game demo looked much more fun to play. I did remark about the glasses and mt disdain for them in another thread, but I believe the desired effect was brought about wonderfully.
> 
> 
> A local amusement park has an attraction that is a 3D feature where the film is Sponge Bob Square Pants in 3D and motion seating that rises,falls, left right, forward, back and really is the ultimate in experienceing the 'like you are there' experience. In order to see in 3D you use cheap glasses that are light weight and have the appearence of sunglasses. Much more comfortable than the Sony glasses I tried. But the Sony 3D demo most closely resembled the Sponge Bob experience, minus the motion seats of course.
> 
> 
> And to answer the OP question, no, 3D is not "most pointless mainstream technology ever". It may be 'lame', it might be 'stupid' but that depends on the person as to their feelings about the technology. I agree it is just another way to get more money from consumers for a niche product, but that is what business is about, how to seperate money from consumers. And while folks may not be shouting from their rooftops their desire for 3D, like everything else it comes down to supply and demand. If there is a strong enough demand for a product, no matter what that product may be, someone, somewhere will supply it. Myself, I can do without and as long as I can still watch television as I have for the past 45+ years, I'll be as happy as a chesire cat. At least with the current 3D technology. Now once the technology has progressed to the point of direct view/glasses free 3D, I might change my mind, as I am sure most people, including the OP himself, will.


*SpongeBob SquarePants 3D*


(2003) 4:40mins


Special Venues Only: Paramount Theme Parks. 3D Ridefilm by Blur Studio.

*SpongeBob SquarePants*

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/dc...b_squarepants/ 


I think this is a short piece of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub7YP...eature=related


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve S* /forum/post/18442819
> 
> 
> One of the benefits of modern electronics is that something like 3D capability can be added to a tv without negatively affecting it's performance as a 2D set and at minimal real cost.



Something many participating in this topic don't seem to understand is that just about any improvement made to an HDTV for 3D will also improve 2D performance.


----------



## Splicer010




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18455575
> 
> *SpongeBob SquarePants 3D*
> 
> 
> (2003) 4:40mins
> 
> 
> Special Venues Only: Paramount Theme Parks. 3D Ridefilm by Blur Studio.
> 
> *SpongeBob SquarePants*
> 
> http://digitalcontentproducer.com/dc...b_squarepants/
> 
> 
> I think this is a short piece of it:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub7YP...eature=related



Exactly.










But this is a better (complete) version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aAhL...eature=related


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken H* /forum/post/18455644
> 
> 
> Something many participating in this topic don't seem to understand is that just about any improvement made to an HDTV for 3D will also improve 2D performance.



Or at the worst case - not affect it at all.


Wonder why people aren't poo-pooing HDTVs with Internet Connections.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18455716
> 
> 
> Or at the worst case - not affect it at all.
> 
> 
> Wonder why people aren't poo-pooing HDTVs with Internet Connections.



Because a TV lacking an internet connection doesn't make anyone feel inferior. Having new buyers getting the 3D technology, makes the people with current high end equipment feel like they no longer have the state of the art.


----------



## KBI

I remember when HDTV was just a 'gimmick.'


----------



## JOHNnDENVER




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FloridaDude* /forum/post/18444308
> 
> 
> Interesting article, has pros and cons...
> 
> 
> "The trouble with 3D in movies is that Hollywood is confusing novelty with sustainable appeal. Audiences will quickly tire of 3D pandering -- and of wearing goofy cardboard glasses.
> 
> 
> And that's one of the problems with 3D as it's currently set to be offered in consumer electronics. Executives smell money. But they just don't get 3D.
> 
> 
> "We went from standard definition to high definition, and [3D] is the natural next step." HDlogix president Jim Spinella said recently, perfectly encapsulating the conventional wisdom among 3D advocates.
> 
> 
> That statement sounds reasonable. But it all hinges on what "3D" means. If "3D" means goofy glasses, then, no, going from not wearing goofy glasses to wearing them is not a "natural next step." And HDlogix's own technology helped demonstrate that.
> 
> 
> A Dallas Cowboys football game featured the "first live 3D broadcast ever to be shown on giant video screens at a major sporting event." The idea was to showcase HDlogix 3D technology. At halftime, the giant screen switched to 3D mode, and the fans were invited to put on the 3D glasses that were handed out at the entrance.
> 
> 
> The intent was to show the second half of the game in 3D. But many fans refused to wear the glasses, and saw a blurry picture. Some of those who did wear them felt nauseous. The crowd booed. After a few uncomfortable minutes, the video was switched back to normal, 2D mode. The crowed cheered.
> 
> 
> This is the horrible reality of current-generation 3D. People cheer when you turn it off. That's too bad, because several industries are throwing a lot of money at it..."
> http://www.techworld.com.au/article/...will_fail_2010



Just as many success stories as well though.... I'd bank I can find more recent successfull presentations than failures. I mean Avatar alone makes the numbers not so good for the failures. Somebody else stated this was red / green glasses 3D? If so, this is a rediculous piece of evidence to post on it.


----------



## JOHNnDENVER




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *g011um* /forum/post/18449025
> 
> 
> But we _haven't_ gone to high definition yet! Not even close! How about companies make that first step before trying the next?!
> 
> 
> I've had my HD service and HD-PVR for about 4 years. Of the 200+ channels my cable provider has available, about 20-25 are HD. The growth of HD over the last few years (at least in terms of new channels) has been glacial. At this pace we'll be another 5-10 years before the ratio of SD to HD finally shifts.
> 
> 
> 3D, even in it's current form, seems at least that far away as well. By then the fad will have died out (as it always has).



Hmm well over 1/2 of my content is HD now..... So my experience is quite different than yours on this note. Most other couple my wife and I know are similar.


----------



## JOHNnDENVER




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Timothy91* /forum/post/18452572
> 
> 
> This is something the "pro 3D" crowd should really read and think about. People can like 3D but it won't be appropriate in all situations. Wearing 3D glasses is a bother. The screen has to encompass the field of view or it's going to look 'odd'. 3D really belongs in a theater where the screens are huge and the ambient surroundings are black/low light. At home and at bars, 3D, just gets in the way of normal living and interacting. It requires someone to totally zone everyone else out. That's why the public 3D sporting event broadcast failed. A crowd must interact and be social.
> 
> 
> Again, the ONLY way this technology becomes viable is if/when the glasses are no longer needed. And that's the MINIMUM standard. I would also add that most home screens would have to cover the whole wall to be enveloping enough for most people. Which is why 3D has only really worked in a movie theater with a large screen.



Lots of us on here have dedicated theaters in their homes. I look forward to screening natively shot 3D persentations in it. So the tech is viable now.


----------



## JOHNnDENVER




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chaz01* /forum/post/18452308
> 
> 
> Well, I for one would like to see all channels in HD. And why not 1080p?
> 
> 
> I'm with ya on black levels too.
> 
> 
> Surely some people aren't comfortable with change, probably most.
> 
> 
> There are also folks who like getting things right before jumping on to something else.
> 
> 
> I don't want to fight out here and let many posts go unreplied to due to this concern.
> 
> 
> Could 3d be lining up sides like the lcd vs. plasma groups?




I have no issues with 1080i content or even 720p content. I am struggling to understand why 1080p content would even be so desired. I'd bank in most all "blind" testing, most of the time you couldn't even tell the difference.


----------



## JOHNnDENVER




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ice Cold* /forum/post/18450568
> 
> 
> I will second all of those comments.
> 
> 
> 
> For years we have been wanting Vibrant rich deep colors, The shaded glasses "Dim" everything.
> 
> 
> Maybe at home it will be less objectionable in a dark room.
> 
> 
> 
> 3D really needs a BIG TV.
> 
> 
> 99% of out 3D experience has been AVATAR is an IMAX Theater (or what I call IMAX Mini) unless you went to a FULL 5 story tall IMAX.
> 
> 
> 
> But the narrative thats being sold is that "if you liked AVATAR in 3D you will need a 3D TV"
> 
> 
> And thats all thats being said. By TV News Media and Print. All bought off. Wake up people.
> 
> 
> Now I am not in the 3D is a "Fad" camp. No its here to stay.
> 
> 
> 
> But you need a Really BIG TV if not the effect is ruined or badly limited.
> 
> 
> To me it reminds me of a Kids Puppet show, or a 3D View MAster from when I was a kid.
> 
> 
> And wait for all the "specially optimized" Speakers for 3D.




Isn't it great that all you have to do is hit a button or two and take off the glasses and your back to the 2D you seem to really like?


----------



## chaz01




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JOHNnDENVER* /forum/post/18457199
> 
> 
> I have no issues with 1080i content or even 720p content. I am struggling to understand why 1080p content would even be so desired. I'd bank in most all "blind" testing, most of the time you couldn't even tell the difference.



I'd bank otherwise. Quantify "most of the time"? What level of defect is acceptable?


Wondering if you took this same stance when 1080p was introduced?


Are you debating just to debate something?


----------



## mgkdragn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JOHNnDENVER* /forum/post/18457199
> 
> 
> I have no issues with 1080i content or even 720p content. I am struggling to understand why 1080p content would even be so desired. I'd bank in most all "blind" testing, most of the time you couldn't even tell the difference.



1080i and 1080p are both High Definition display formats for HDTVs. 1080i and 1080p signals actually contain the same information. Both 1080i and 1080p represent a 1920x1080 pixel resolution (1,920 pixels across the screen by 1,080 pixels down the screen). The difference between 1080i and 1080p is in the way the signal is sent from a source component or displayed on an HDTV screen.


In 1080i each frame of video is sent or displayed in alternative fields. The fields in 1080i are composed of 540 rows of pixels or lines of pixels running from the top to the bottom of the screen, with the odd fields displayed first and the even fields displayed second. Together, both fields create a full frame, made up of all 1,080 pixel rows or lines, every 30th of a second.


In 1080p, each frame of video is sent or displayed progressively. This means that both the odd and even fields (all 1,080 pixel rows or pixel lines) that make up the full frame are displayed together. This results in a smoother looking image, with less motion artifacts and jagged edges.


----------



## Don H

I'll wait for ultra HD.


----------



## fafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KBI* /forum/post/18456856
> 
> 
> I remember when HDTV was just a 'gimmick.'



I know of no one who ever thought HDTV was a "gimmick." It was clearly thought to be a higher quality picture. Lots did think it was not worth the money but that is another thing entirely.


fafner


----------



## JOHNnDENVER




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chaz01* /forum/post/18457731
> 
> 
> I'd bank otherwise. Quantify "most of the time"? What level of defect is acceptable?
> 
> 
> Wondering if you took this same stance when 1080p was introduced?
> 
> 
> Are you debating just to debate something?



What level of defect? Any you can really discern from your seating position I suppose. Which in the case of common distances people have to their displays, 20/20 vision can't even discern HD from quality SD.



Wondering if you took this same stance when 1080p was introduced? Yes, and I still do. I'd have no issue with running output at 1080i or 720p to my two 1080p displays. I'd also have no issues with owning and using a 720p display or projector.



Are you debating just to debate something? I think the question your asking is.... "Is there really a point to your post" My point is, the 1080p from a source perspective crowd is way to hung up on resolution as an over riding factor on picture quality. It's pretty far down the list as far as I am concerned. I still consider SD-DVD to be an excellent quality video and audio source and it's only 480i at the source level. Looks fantastic on most all HD resolution displays.


----------



## JOHNnDENVER




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mgkdragn* /forum/post/18457752
> 
> 
> 1080i and 1080p are both High Definition display formats for HDTVs. 1080i and 1080p signals actually contain the same information. Both 1080i and 1080p represent a 1920x1080 pixel resolution (1,920 pixels across the screen by 1,080 pixels down the screen). The difference between 1080i and 1080p is in the way the signal is sent from a source component or displayed on an HDTV screen.
> 
> 
> In 1080i each frame of video is sent or displayed in alternative fields. The fields in 1080i are composed of 540 rows of pixels or lines of pixels running from the top to the bottom of the screen, with the odd fields displayed first and the even fields displayed second. Together, both fields create a full frame, made up of all 1,080 pixel rows or lines, every 30th of a second.
> 
> 
> In 1080p, each frame of video is sent or displayed progressively. This means that both the odd and even fields (all 1,080 pixel rows or pixel lines) that make up the full frame are displayed together. This results in a smoother looking image, with less motion artifacts and jagged edges.




On a good quality source? I still contend that 720p, 1080i, or 1080p is going end up so close to each other by the time it gets to the progressive only digital display panel to be way down the list as to what really effects picture quality. I'd love to blind test some of you on this one at your normal seating position.


----------



## JOHNnDENVER




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafner* /forum/post/18457831
> 
> 
> I know of no one who ever thought HDTV was a "gimmick." It was clearly thought to be a higher quality picture. Lots did think it was not worth the money but that is another thing entirely.
> 
> 
> fafner



I still hear this a lot from relatively smaller screen size owners.


----------



## mgkdragn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JOHNnDENVER* /forum/post/18457939
> 
> 
> On a good quality source? I still contend that 720p, 1080i, or 1080p is going end up so close to each other by the time it gets to the progressive only digital display panel to be way down the list as to what really effects picture quality. I'd love to blind test some of you on this one at your normal seating position.



I agree with you 100%. Until the user gets beyond probably a 50" screen. On my screen (projection, 110") .. there is a noticable quality improvement. Not to say that 720p, 1080i, or 1080p don't ALL look good, specs aside, from a user perspective.


And yes, I also belong to the club that thinks standard DVD looks pretty darn good as well. On a well done transfer, anyway. There is nothing wrong with upconversion done right.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18456826
> 
> 
> Because a TV lacking an internet connection doesn't make anyone feel inferior. Having new buyers getting the 3D technology, makes the people with current high end equipment feel like they no longer have the state of the art.



Oh - I get it . . .


3DTV Envy.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don H* /forum/post/18457772
> 
> 
> I'll wait for ultra HD.



Will you be moving to Japan?


----------



## ssjLancer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JOHNnDENVER* /forum/post/18457947
> 
> 
> I still hear this a lot from relatively smaller screen size owners.



Well that explains it.. they dont think HD is a gimmick.. they think larger screens are a gimmick..


----------



## dave300zx

They just hear of friends going from a 50 inch Trinitron to a 52 inch Bravia, and the picture looks worse because of the same garbage signal.


----------



## markfh

So far the 3d i've seen doesn't impress me that much. There's a "cut out" quality to the image instead of a true 3d appearance. That makes the image almost cartoonish to me.


Ok, having said that I do plan on doing 3d on my Mits 82837 when all the parts are available later this year. Not because 3d is all that great (IMO) but just because I like all the tech stuff and who knows they might actually offer some 3d movies that I might like.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dave300zx* /forum/post/18458894
> 
> 
> They just hear of friends going from a *50 inch Trinitron* to a 52 inch Bravia, and the picture looks worse because of the same garbage signal.


*You meant 30" trinitron right?*


The reason why that happens has nothing to do with the signal and everything to do with the display.


Today's HDTVs are fixed resolution displays; 1080P, 768P, 720P, etc. They can only display that fixed resolution. So when you feed them a 480i SD signal, they have to convert it to their native (fixed) resolution.


Todays HDTVs look best when displaying HDTV. That's what they were designed to do.


Years ago when HDTVs first came out (direct view tube and 3 CRT RPTV) they were MultiSync resolution. The display would adjust to the incoming signal. 480i would be displayed at 480i and 1080i would be displayed at 1080i. No upconverting 480i to 1080i


----------



## JOHNnDENVER




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ssjLancer* /forum/post/18458550
> 
> 
> Well that explains it.. they dont think HD is a gimmick.. they think larger screens are a gimmick..



More to do with the fact they are so far from the smallish screen they just can't see any difference.


----------



## Chris_TC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markfh* /forum/post/18459048
> 
> 
> So far the 3d i've seen doesn't impress me that much. There's a "cut out" quality to the image instead of a true 3d appearance.



What did you watch? Content that was filmed in 3d doesn't look cut out while conversions often do.


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris_TC* /forum/post/18460500
> 
> 
> What did you watch? Content that was filmed in 3d doesn't look cut out while conversions often do.


*Exactly so!*


And when the 'gold standard' for an in-home AV system is a 7680x4320 pixel 'UHDTV2-ready' 200" 3D capable display, you'll likely be able to watch a 'remastered' *"Le Voyage Dans La Lune"* (1902, Georges Méliès) . . . but you'll never mistake the _video quality and experience_ for what you feel when you watch *"Aliens vs Avatars, 3D"* . . . ?!










[ _. . . Although it's not immediately clear which movie will be judged to have the better plot!_







]


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/18461305
> 
> *Exactly so!*
> 
> 
> And when the 'gold standard' for an in-home AV system is a 7680x4320 pixel 'UHDTV2-ready' 200" 3D capable display, you'll likely be able to watch a 'remastered' *"Le Voyage Dans La Lune"* (1902, Georges Méliès) . . . but you'll never mistake the _video quality and experience_ for what you feel when you watch *"Aliens vs Avatars, 3D"* . . . ?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ _. . . Although it's not immediately clear which movie will be judged to have the better plot!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ]





> Quote:
> Because this format is highly experimental, NHK researchers had to build their own prototype from scratch. In the system demonstrated in September 2003 . . .


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Hi-Vision 


So . . . 6.5 years later. How close are they to implementing Super Hi Vision in consumers homes? How about for commerical usage?


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18461467
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Hi-Vision
> 
> 
> So . . . 6.5 years later. How close are they to implementing Super Hi Vision in consumers homes? How about for commercial usage?


_Actually, there's no reason 'SHV grade' displays couldn't be used with a 'higher resolution' prerecorded movie BD replacement on '4th Generation' optical disks (250GB - 1000GB) even before broadcast UHDTV rolls out beyond just (say) Japan._


NHK apparently plans to start test 'to home' broadcasting (initially maybe just for UHDTV1, i.e., 3840x2160 pixel video, 22.2 channel audio, 'cos it uses 25% the bandwidth of UHDTV2) in 2015-2017, with roll out in the early 2020s. I'm guessing the BBC, and RAI will let NHK lead by a few years.


There are a bunch of industry related econometric forecasts for 20% to 30% broadcast receiver penetration of European households by about 2025 (although it's not clear to me whether or not the numbers are just 'native' HDMI2 and HDMI4 displays, or include homes using 'boxes' to down-convert to HDMI1 displays...?!)


Notwithstanding the desire of AV aficionados for bigger-and-better displays, I have a hard time believing we'll all be stuffing 100" to 200" displays into our living rooms to take full advantage of UHDTV, but the CE manufacturers do have to create 'new demand' every few years or go out of business...!


But it does look like someone realized that every family would not go for (full) 22.2 channel audio at home (what with 80% using just the tv's stereo speakers), so it looks like NHK is trying hard to develop good adaptive downmixing for "any" (approx) 10+ speaker layout (with full 22.2 speaker layouts showing up in commercial venues).

*I think a good question is whether 3D will 'help' or 'hinder' the arrival of UHDTV:* 3D will push the demand for larger screen sizes, which in turn drives the need for higher resolution displays. But 'consumer resources' once anticipated to be committed to a UHDTV future may get sidelined into 3D. _One issue:_ large display UHDTV supposedly creates a high degree of 'immersion' EVEN WITHOUT 3D (an effect to which I can attest from visiting the Cinesphere at Ontario Place!) so there may be a certain amount of competition between HDMI+3D and UHDTV-without3D . . . and the latter does not require glasses!


----------



## Gae

I haven't read the whole thread here but I noticed that there were several references to the Dallas Cowboy's 3D event and the disaster that it was. Well as far as I am aware, the reason it was a disaster was because they used the "old" anaglyph cardboard glasses 3D system which everyone knows sucks big time and gives you eyestrain and headaches. Obviously, the organisers went for the cheap option and almost killed off the 3D revolution in one fell swoop or at least killed off the enthusiasm for 3D in 80,000 people's minds.


The current 3D technology is totally different and works brilliantly.


Gae


----------



## Chu Gai

I can't wait till they finally get stereo right and I can move away from using just one speaker.


----------



## NorthTV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chu Gai* /forum/post/18462716
> 
> 
> I can't wait till they finally get stereo right and I can move away from using just one speaker.



Yeah, and it is getting harder and harder to find tubes for my radio. I wish they would finally get transistors perfected.


----------



## fafner

Along the same lines, I think 55" will probably be the maximum size that the vast majority of consumers will be interested in. Yes, there will be larger sizes but I suspect they will be limited to a very limited number of consuers.


fafner


----------



## mgkdragn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chu Gai* /forum/post/18462716
> 
> 
> I can't wait till they finally get stereo right and I can move away from using just one speaker.



Having been there at the nexus of consumer stereo, I can attest to the fact that most of the same arguments were made against it back then as what is being used against 3-D today.. a ploy to get us to buy more equipment, a fad that would not last.. etc.


I don't know what the future holds, however, we'll vote with our wallet. Excuse me while I dust off my quadraphonic gear, beta collection, DAT unit, IBM PCjr and that 6 pack of New Coke


----------



## fafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mgkdragn* /forum/post/18464041
> 
> 
> Having been there at the nexus of consumer stereo, I can attest to the fact that most of the same arguments were made against it back then as what is being used against 3-D today.. a ploy to get us to buy more equipment, a fad that would not last.. etc.
> 
> 
> I don't know what the future holds, however, we'll vote with our wallet. Excuse me while I dust off my quadraphonic gear, beta collection, DAT unit, IBM PCjr and that 6 pack of New Coke



Actually I think many with vote with their minds. Stereo made a lot of sense since people have two ears and nothing special was needed to become acclimated to stereo. While people do see 3D in real life, the necessity to use glasses will automatically exclude people who are just incidentally watching their TV. No one will wear the special glasses while, for instance, reading AVS posts while watching their favorite sports team play. It is simply not a resonable expectation for somone to do that.


fafner


----------



## mgkdragn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafner* /forum/post/18464066
> 
> 
> Actually I think many with vote with their minds. Stereo made a lot of sense since people have two ears and nothing special was needed to become acclimated to stereo. While people do see 3D in real life, the necessity to use glasses will automatically exclude people who are just incidentally watching their TV. No one will wear the special glasses while, for instance, reading AVS posts while watching their favorite sports team play. It is simply not a resonable expectation for somone to do that.
> 
> 
> fafner



Their mind may vote, but their wallet will be the only thing the makers hear..







Agreed, the glasses are a real drag and maybe the most fundmental gripe on the tech. Philosphically, though.. The draw of 3-D is simply that it fundamentally alters the emotional experience of viewing. It no longer feels like a story about others, but becomes a story that invades your space, perhaps threateningly, perhaps provocatively, perhaps joyously. We enjoy 3-D movies because when we watch them we are no longer mere audience members. Thus, the issue is, does that emotional experience translate into the home environment...??


----------



## Alan M

Wow this thread is crap







..... I'm here to set you straight. I have never had so much anger at technology as to feel it necessary to blog about it at all the time. Its not mandatory, "IT'S A OPTION". Some people do want it. All the crap about how expensive it is, is garbage as well. I am not a early adopter of anything that comes out. I was simply replacing a 15 yr old rptv with a new 60" RPTV that just happens to also do 3D. Guess what, My whole set up glasses, tv, and pc all together cost me only as much (around $2,000) as a non 3D plasma of a smaller size this time last year. So if you don't like it, DON'T BUY IT (genius concept huh). Your head does come with a pivot. Go out and get a hobby. Mine is 3D










P.S. IT LOOKS AWESOME


----------



## mgkdragn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan M* /forum/post/18464201
> 
> 
> Wow this thread is crap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..... I'm here to set you straight. I have never had so much anger at technology as to feel it necessary to blog about it at all the time. Its not mandatory, "IT'S A OPTION". Some people do want it. All the crap about how expensive it is, is garbage as well. I am not a early adopter of anything that comes out. I was simply replacing a 15 yr old rptv with a new 60" RPTV that just happens to also do 3D. Guess what, My whole set up glasses, tv, and pc all together cost me only as much (around $2,000) as a non 3D plasma of a smaller size this time last year. So if you don't like it, DON'T BUY IT (genius concept huh). Your head does come with a pivot. Go out and get a hobby. Mine is 3D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. IT LOOKS AWESOME



Can I ask what is the model of the new 60" RPTV... ?


----------



## Alan M

WD-60737 is the model number.


----------



## Splicer010




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan M* /forum/post/18464201
> 
> 
> Wow this thread is crap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..... I'm here to set you straight. I have never had so much anger at technology as to feel it necessary to blog about it at all the time. Its not mandatory, "IT'S A OPTION". Some people do want it. All the crap about how expensive it is, is garbage as well. I am not a early adopter of anything that comes out. I was simply replacing a 15 yr old rptv with a new 60" RPTV that just happens to also do 3D. Guess what, My whole set up glasses, tv, and pc all together cost me only as much (around $2,000) as a non 3D plasma of a smaller size this time last year. So if you don't like it, DON'T BUY IT (genius concept huh). Your head does come with a pivot. Go out and get a hobby. Mine is 3D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. IT LOOKS AWESOME



So what are you setting me strsight on, that you aren't an early adopter? That you replaced a 15 year old year old RPTV? Dude, why the hell should I care enough to be "straightened out"? Because I need to set YOU straight pal. I DON'T care about you or your equipment. You really shouldn't think quite so highly of yourself as to believe others also think highly of you.


----------



## Mike Lang

Don't get personal guys, it's not worth being tossed out.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Splicer010* /forum/post/18465564
> 
> 
> So take it as you wish. Some want 3D, some find it pointless. Me? I want 3D without all the gimmicks like speacialized battery powered shutter glasses.



No problem - really - just buy the 46" JVC 3D LCD TV. Uses passive polarized 3D - the cheap glasses. Costs $9153. You can buy the glasses for $5 a pair

http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/f...l_id=MDL101867 


OBTW - sorry - no Full HD per eye with that technology (Xpol).


And let me save you the time about wishing for one that will do Full HD per eye. They are years off into the future.


----------



## Splicer010

I can wait.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Splicer010* /forum/post/18465842
> 
> 
> I can wait.



Well if you can wait long enough, you will be able to buy a 3DTV that doesn't require any glasses to see 3D.


----------



## Splicer010

Lee. Put the pipe down and walk away brother.










I said that is what I wanted:



> Quote:
> Me? I want 3D without all the gimmicks like speacialized battery powered shutter glasses.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Splicer010* /forum/post/18465944
> 
> 
> Lee. Put the pipe down and walk away brother.



Sure - as soon as you shelve the bottle.











> Quote:
> I said that is what I wanted:



Neither Panasonic, nor Sony nor Samsung use any "specialized battery" for their active shutter glasses. Just an off the shelf CR "Coin" type battery.


LOL - do you even know what you want? Or what is available?


----------



## rto




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18465908
> 
> 
> Well if you can wait long enough, you will be able to buy a 3DTV that doesn't require any glasses to see 3D.



That's when I'll be buying in, enthusiastically.........assuming that image quality isn't the least bit wonky compared to the best 2D displays that are available when it's introduced. I'm not interested in two steps forward, one step back.....or in supporting greed-driven pseudo-3D conversions of 2D programming material.


----------



## JOHNnDENVER

Of course by the time that happens, there won't be any 2D displays left to compare too.


----------



## trumperZ06




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JOHNnDENVER* /forum/post/18466462
> 
> 
> Of course by the time that happens, there won't be any 2D displays left to compare too.



*







BINGO







*








IMO... sports broadcasts will drive the acceptance of 3D TV...


to the general public.


----------



## Splicer010




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18466124
> 
> 
> Neither Panasonic, nor Sony nor Samsung use any "specialized battery" for their active shutter glasses. Just an off the shelf CR "Coin" type battery.
> 
> 
> LOL - do you even know what you want? Or what is available?



Lee, IT WAS AN EXAMPLE! I obviously am not going to list each individual thing that i don't care for. Chill out, quit trying to make me dislike this technology. I know what I want and and no, it is not available...yet. So get off the high and mighty soap box. SOme of us do have a clue.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Splicer010* /forum/post/18466675
> 
> 
> Lee, IT WAS AN EXAMPLE! I obviously am not going to list each individual thing that i don't care for. Chill out, quit trying to make me dislike this technology. I know what I want and and no, it is not available...yet. So get off the high and mighty soap box. SOme of us do have a clue.



So please share with me exactly what you want in a pair of 3D glasses, as you state it is not available yet.


----------



## Splicer010

Oh Lee, give me a break man. You aren't seriously as thick as you are making out to be, are you? I don't want anything from glasses. *I DON'T WANT GLASSES AT ALL*. Is it clear enough for you now Lee?


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Splicer010* /forum/post/18467780
> 
> 
> Oh Lee, give me a break man. You aren't seriously as thick as you are making out to be, are you? I don't want anything from glasses. *I DON'T WANT GLASSES AT ALL*. Is it clear enough for you now Lee?



Sure. You want an Auto 3D display. Should be out in about 7 to 10 years.


See you then.


----------



## Frank

We are enjoying the heck out of my new Panasonic 3D plasma with nothing connected to it at all.

Just take the SD card out of my 3D digital Fuji camera and plug it into the TV and watch amazing 3D slideshows. Why wait for 3D media when you can create your own?


----------



## Splicer010

Actually, that sounds pretty cool Frank.


----------



## downtone61

when will people be happy with the tv they have. it must be nice for some of you to recycle through tvs like batteries


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Frank* /forum/post/18467953
> 
> 
> We are enjoying the heck out of my new Panasonic 3D plasma with nothing connected to it at all.
> 
> Just take the SD card out of my 3D digital Fuji camera and plug it into the TV and watch amazing 3D slideshows. Why wait for 3D media when you can create your own?



Frank!


Great to hear from you again. I miss the old days at AVS.


----------



## Lazarus Dark

"3D HDTV is the most pointless mainstream technology ever"

And this is a pointless thread.


If you don't want to buy a 3d tv, then don't. Simple as that. I can't remember the last time so many people got upset about a technology thats _completely optional_. The cost of adding 3d is nearly negligable after the initial design cost of adding in the functionality, so in a couple years all tv's will be 3d, but you won't be paying anymore than you would have for a non-3d tv. Don't want to watch 3d? Then don't. Don't buy the glasses. End of story. Why spend countless posts complaining about something _you don't have to use, don't have to buy/won't cost you anything_?


I don't want all movies in 3d, nor do I want to always watch 3d. But I would like the option, and as that option for me does not in anyway affect the rest of the buying public... where is the problem?


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *downtone61* /forum/post/18467982
> 
> 
> when will people be happy with the tv they have. it must be nice for some of you to recycle through tvs like batteries



I can't afford a new HDTV just for 3D right now, but in no way does that mean others shouldn't get one, if they want it and can afford it.


I'll say it again. The real pushback is people being intimidated, and pissed off, by the fact all the money they've sunk into HDTV isn't going to serve them like when their parents bought a color TV; to get into the 3D game they will have to spend more money than anyone would have planned to a year, or two or three, ago. Result: A huge case of sour grapes. 'I just bought an HDTV, I'm not going to buy another', 'it's a scam',.....and on and on and on. Well, that's fine. For them. No one is being forced to buy a new TV. They can continue to watch HDTV just like they planned on.


See you in the future.


----------



## chaz01

The real pushback is the dumb glasses.


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chaz01* /forum/post/18469061
> 
> 
> The real pushback is the dumb glasses.



Just like the dumb sunglasses you wear outdoors?


----------



## Bill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Frank* /forum/post/18467953
> 
> 
> We are enjoying the heck out of my new Panasonic 3D plasma with nothing connected to it at all.
> 
> Just take the SD card out of my 3D digital Fuji camera and plug it into the TV and watch amazing 3D slideshows. Why wait for 3D media when you can create your own?



You don't have an antenna? Yup, the 3D conversion is great.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chaz01* /forum/post/18469061
> 
> 
> The real pushback is the dumb glasses.



How many times do we have to hear how dumb the glasses are? Do you guys really believe if you say it enough that it will keep 3D TV from happening? If you were right, NO ONE would wear the glasses at the movie theaters. People will want the glasses when they buy a 3D TV. The price is the only thing they will baulk at, and eventually the glasses will be very affordable.


----------



## Splicer010




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken H* /forum/post/18469438
> 
> 
> Just like the dumb sunglasses you wear outdoors?



Apples & Oranges.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18470085
> 
> How many times do we have to hear how dumb the glasses are? *Do you guys really believe if you say it enough that it will keep 3D TV from happening?*


You will hear this until glasses are no longer needed. *It will in this house.*


----------



## Paul_Seng

My wife and I went to Best Buy to get some blank DVD's and check out the samsung and panasonic. Coming from a woman who really doesn't care about HDTV programming, she liked both. The Panasonic had the demo with the undersea stuff and the samsung had Night at the Museum 2 converted to 3d. She liked both.


the point is that some people have different priorities about what they want in entertainment than others.


----------



## hifiguru




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18470085
> 
> 
> How many times do we have to hear how dumb the glasses are? Do you guys really believe if you say it enough that it will keep 3D TV from happening? If you were right, NO ONE would wear the glasses at the movie theaters. People will want the glasses when they buy a 3D TV. The price is the only thing they will baulk at, and eventually the glasses will be very affordable.



Thank You! When will people get over it glasses are a fact of life with 3D. If you don't like it don't buy it, but don't go off telling others how dumb they are for wanting 3D. Just realize you are the ignorant one who does not understand the technology.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

3D is for highly specialized movies... the problem is that Hollywood wants to make everything 3D to hide the fact that they have pretty much run out of ideas. The fact that 95% of the 3D movies right now are 2D conversions with lousy 3D composition, goes to show you just how bad the situation is getting. Who cares about quality... just put the damn thing in 3D, and push those tickets!!


It's a storytelling distraction. You are no longer focusing on the story, if there even is one that is, but the ooo-aaah! _effect_. Once that becomes common place and the amazement wears off, some audience members will wonder where the actual meaty stories went.


That happened to me with Avatar. Once I got used to the nifty 3D effects... I started scratching my head and started figuring out that if not for the perty 3D world of Pandora, I really wasn't seeing that substantial a story. The book had a shiny cover, but the pages were mostly blank.


Have no real story or plot or substantial acting? Put it in 3D.


----------



## Splicer010

Just for clarification purposes, I for one have never put one down for their likes, wants or anything of the sort. Just because I want glasses-less 3D does not mean that I am "the ignorant one who does not understand the technology" when quite the opposite is true. As such I take great offense for being called "ignorant" by someone who obviously has blinders on and knows not what has been said in countless posts. These are the same people that called people names during the HD DVD/Blu-ray war, simply because they don't believe that others have the right to have differing opinions. Either agree with them or be "ignorant".










That being said, I came on here to suggest that a movie that would look really fantastic in 3D is Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark. THAT would be awesome in 3D in my opinion.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dan Hitchman* /forum/post/18472714
> 
> 
> 3D is for highly specialized movies... the problem is that Hollywood wants to make everything 3D to hide the fact that they have pretty much run out of ideas. The fact that 95% of the 3D movies right now are 2D conversions with lousy 3D composition, goes to show you just how bad the situation is getting. Who cares about quality... just put the damn thing in 3D, and push those tickets!!
> 
> 
> It's a storytelling distraction. You are no longer focusing on the story, if there even is one that is, but the ooo-aaah! _effect_. Once that becomes common place and the amazement wears off, some audience members will wonder where the actual meaty stories went.
> 
> 
> That happened to me with Avatar. Once I got used to the nifty 3D effects... I started scratching my head and started figuring out that if not for the perty 3D world of Pandora, I really wasn't seeing that substantial a story. The book had a shiny cover, but the pages were mostly blank.
> 
> 
> Have no real story or plot or substantial acting? Put it in 3D.



Best to enlighten yourself:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1237092


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Lee, thanks for the link... although IMHO the couple films on that list I might actually want to put my money down on seem to be 2D to 3D converted. One true 3D film I'm actually psyched about seeing (actually jumping up and down about) was 100% CGI rendered: TS3.


Nice to see that TS 3D is getting 7.1 surround with some screenings. I wonder if that'll be SDDS 8 channel (five on-screen channels, two surrounds, one LFE) or with split stereo back channels like DTS and Dolby's recommended home 7.1 layout. And here's hoping it winds up on the Blu-ray version!


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dan Hitchman* /forum/post/18472908
> 
> 
> Lee, thanks for the link... although IMHO the couple films on that list I might actually want to put my money down on seem to be 2D to 3D converted. One true 3D film I'm actually psyched about seeing (actually jumping up and down about) was 100% CGI rendered: TS3.
> 
> 
> Nice to see that TS 3D is getting 7.1 surround with some screenings. I wonder if that'll be SDDS 8 channel (five on-screen channels, two surrounds, one LFE) or with split stereo back channels like DTS and Dolby's recommended home 7.1 layout. And here's hoping it winds up on the Blu-ray version!



The TS3 7.1 SS layout will be the same as a home 7.1 SS layout; 3 screen channels and 4 surround channels - 2 side and 2 back. First time it will be used in commerical theaters.


Of the 20 3D films for 2010 (not including IMAX or concerts) 16 are S3D while only 4 are 2D to 3D conversions.


----------



## mzpro5

Interesting - TV's will now come with a health warning and oh yeah don't let your young kids watch any 3D material.

http://www.samsung.com/au/3d-tv/warning.html 


Oh and on a completely different subject - does anyone at AVS realize the stupid ad graphic in the top left corner of the forum blocks the drop down menus on "Thread Tools" and "Search This thread"


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mzpro5* /forum/post/18473323
> 
> 
> Interesting - TV's will now come with a health warning and oh yeah don't let your young kids watch any 3D material.
> 
> http://www.samsung.com/au/3d-tv/warning.html
> 
> 
> Oh and on a completely different subject - does anyone at AVS realize the stupid ad graphic in the top left corner of the forum blocks the drop down menus on "Thread Tools" and "Search This thread"



There is a whole section in my user manual for my cell phone that is 5 pages long, has lots of warnings within it and is titled:

*Important Safety and Legal Information*


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18473101
> 
> 
> The TS3 7.1 SS layout will be the same as a home 7.1 SS layout; 3 screen channels and 4 surround channels - 2 side and 2 back. First time it will be used in commercial theaters.


_If I had to,_ I'd guess Sony must have been 'advised' that adding the [Sony proprietary] SDDS layout into BluRay would have been a fatal mistake. But BD has 'won the war' and we are now looking at 'alternate' 7.1 speaker layouts -- with content both upmixed from 5.1 and (at least theoretically) 7.1 discrete -- it might be interesting to have 'home SDDS' as a speaker layout option (presumably using remapping algorithms similar to those employed by DTS-HDMA, when so required...)


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/18473598
> 
> _If I had to,_ I'd guess Sony must have been 'advised' that adding the [Sony proprietary] SDDS layout into BluRay would have been a fatal mistake. But BD has 'won the war' and we are now looking at 'alternate' 7.1 speaker layouts -- with content both upmixed from 5.1 and (at least theoretically) 7.1 discrete -- it might be interesting to have 'home SDDS' as a speaker layout option (presumably using remapping algorithms similar to those employed by DTS-HDMA, when so required...)



Using 5 screen channels like the old 70mm format is a waste for the home. No one has a big enough screen in their home to take advantage of it. Plus there is no software that has 5 discrete screen channels for home video.


The only difference between TS3's 7.1 mix on BD and all other 7.1 mixes on BD is that it will be specifically mixed for 7.1 and not a 5.1 to 7.1 remix as happens now.


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18473611
> 
> 
> Using 5 screen channels like the old 70mm format is a waste for the home. No one has a big enough screen in their home to take advantage of it. Plus there is no software that has 5 discrete screen channels for home video.



I guess NHK's strategy with SHV is that it's better to start with 5 discrete front channels, and then mix down for playback on systems with only 3 front speakers. That way, the same SHV signal can be used as source with either a large, high resolution, "120 deg. wide" display, or scaled down for a [current 1080] HDMI display. _*Obligatory 3D comment:*_ Is there ever any reason we might want the surround sound playback from the 2D and 3D versions of a movie to be different? (e.g., would it make sense to have a different front-to-back mix to "match" the difference in the "depth" of each version?)


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/18475057
> 
> 
> I guess NHK's strategy with SHV is that it's better to start with 5 discrete front channels, and then mix down for playback on systems with only 3 front speakers. That way, the same SHV signal can be used as source with either a large, high resolution, "120 deg. wide" display, or scaled down for a [current 1080] HDMI display. _*Obligatory 3D comment:*_ Is there ever any reason we might want the surround sound playback from the 2D and 3D versions of a movie to be different? (e.g., would it make sense to have a different front-to-back mix to "match" the difference in the "depth" of each version?)



You do understand that NHK = Japan and that is they ever bring out SHV, it may never go further than Japan.


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18475226
> 
> 
> You do understand that NHK = Japan and that is they ever bring out SHV, . . .


_Yes._ If I'm not mistaken, NHK did a [ground-space-ground] live transmission test of satellite-to-home broadcasting technology in mid 2009 (but, apparently, the error correction algorithms are having problems with interference from rain!) I saw some references to starting test broadcasts in 2015-2017.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18475226
> 
> 
> . . . it may never go further than Japan.



There are a bunch of industry and econometrics forecasts for 5% household penetration in Europe in around 2022, rising to near 30% in 2025, presumably based on the existing involvement of the BBC, RAI (Italy), and other industry players (plus the European Broadcasting Union, in some capacity.)


Obviously 2020 is decade away (and much can change in that decade!), but the CEMs are going to need more 'next big things' every few years, and [to me!] _BigScreen+HighResolution+2D/3D_ seems like an obvious way to go...?!


Of course, I'm admittedly biased: Although I'll probably continue to use [just] 24" 1080 downrezz'd displays (for now), I am looking forward to 22.2 channel discrete audio [_provided NHK can get high quality adaptive downmixes to work with something like 10+ speakers...?!_







]


----------



## fafner

Personally, I think that 3 speakers in the front is by far the biggest limitation still existing in reproduction of "true" sound quality, especially for orchestral music. It is not possible with just 3 front speakers to capture the width of sound produced by an orchestra stretched across a stage as exists in real life. I would love to hear, for example, basses on the far right, violas and woodwinds in the center and violins stretching from the center to the far left. Even though I have speakers with wide dispersion and and SDA effect (Polk SDA2A), I still do not get the width of sound that I hear in live performances.


fafner


----------



## JamesN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafner* /forum/post/18475947
> 
> 
> Personally, I think that 3 speakers in the front is by far the biggest limitation still existing in reproduction of "true" sound quality, especially for orchestral music. It is not possible with just 3 front speakers to capture the width of sound produced by an orchestra stretched across a stage as exists in real life. I would love to hear, for example, basses on the far right, violas and woodwinds in the center and violins stretching from the center to the far left. Even though I have speakers with wide dispersion and and SDA effect (Polk SDA2A), I still do not get the width of sound that I hear in live performances.
> 
> 
> fafner



Have you looked into Audyssey DSX, with its additional width channels?
Link .


I haven't heard it personally, but it seems like an interesting concept, especially for larger rooms.


----------



## fafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JamesN* /forum/post/18476065
> 
> 
> Have you looked into Audyssey DSX, with its additional width channels?
> Link .
> 
> 
> I haven't heard it personally, but it seems like an interesting concept, especially for larger rooms.



Thank you. No I had not heard of Audyssey DSX but it does sound very interesting and I will look for more information on it.


Separately, my receiver has the option to have two sets of surround speakers but with both receiving the same signals. I have wondered if I could get closer to the effect I want by adding a pair of speakers between my fronts and surrounds thus possibly adding width. Do you happen to know of anyone who has experimented with such a setting and what they thought of it? Thanks again.


fafner


----------



## JamesN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafner* /forum/post/18476809
> 
> 
> ...Do you happen to know of anyone who has experimented with such a setting and what they thought of it?...



There is a guy on blu-ray.com that has a 14.5 speaker setup !







That's where I first heard about Audyssey DSX. He might be able to answer any questions you might have.


----------



## Dan Hitchman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18473611
> 
> 
> Using 5 screen channels like the old 70mm format is a waste for the home. No one has a big enough screen in their home to take advantage of it. Plus there is no software that has 5 discrete screen channels for home video.
> 
> 
> The only difference between TS3's 7.1 mix on BD and all other 7.1 mixes on BD is that it will be specifically mixed for 7.1 and not a 5.1 to 7.1 remix as happens now.



Good thing! Gone are the giant, legendary 70mm screens of yore that could utilize 5 behind the screen channels. At most multiplexes, at least in my neck of the woods, you're lucky to get something more than an over-sized front projection home theater system!!


I'm glad to see _somebody_ is bringing true 7.1 mixes into the commercial mainstream... After New Line was gobbled back up by WHV, 7.1 mixes, albeit conversions from 5.1 stems (some were quite good, however, if the music and effects stems were sufficiently spread into multiple multi-channel tracks), became few and far between.


Having been in a couple theater projection booths I would think rewiring most modern auditoriums' back speaker arrays into left and right stereo splits would be fairly easy, though a little time consuming. I would think robust digital cinema hardware would already have the capability of 8 channels built in (or easily software updated).


Recommended 7.1 home layout. DTS and Dolby (according to WSR and Roger Dressler, who used to work at Dolby) are trying to make this the defacto industry standard as it gives the over all best audio envelopment:

http://www.dts.com/Consumer_Electron...C5DB3F924.ashx


----------



## mgkdragn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dan Hitchman* /forum/post/18477789
> 
> 
> Good thing! Gone are the giant, legendary 70mm screens of yore that could utilize 5 behind the screen channels.



Remember those giant Klipschorn's (Khorn) .. when I worked as an usher as a teen, I would marvel at those things.


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JamesN* /forum/post/18476065
> 
> 
> Have you looked into Audyssey DSX, with its additional width channels?
> Link .
> 
> 
> I haven't heard it personally, but it seems like an interesting concept, especially for larger rooms.


_Sorry, we're a little off topic here..._


DSX ['Wide' mode] is a post processor that can upmix an existing 5.1 source for (synthetic) "7.1 Front Wide" speaker configuration playback. The recently announced Pioneer VSX-1020-K and VSX-1120-K AVRs include a "Pioneer Proprietary Front Wide Mode" which is presumably intended to perform a similar function (no reviews available for that feature yet). However, for several years the DTS-HDMA system has provided the capability to author and playback BDs in fully discrete 7.1 Front Wide speaker configuration (the speaker placement is 'identical' to that used with DSX Wide mode). For playback on a (say) 7.1 Standard Speaker configuration playback layout, a compliant DTS-HDMA decoder is supposed to effect an "as-required" 'remapping' step to resolve the differences between the 'authoring' and 'playback' speaker configurations; this allows any 7.1 layout to playback a 7.1 Front Wide recording.










My thought is that concerts authored for BD in DTS-HDMA should all have been authored in 7.1 Front Wide speaker configuration for 'closest to original' quality in the hope that someday the AVR manufacturers would support discrete 7.1 Front Wide playback (at least for DTS-HDMA BDs). However, even though DSX has 'popularized' the 7.1 Front Wide speaker configuration, there is no indication that CEMs plan AVRs with DTS-HDMA decoders offering 7.1 Front Wide speaker configuration as a playback layout for 7.1 discrete content (even as a option/alternative) . . . and there are still no [concert, etc.] 7.1 discrete BDs authored in DTS-HDMA 7.1 Front Wide to take best advantage of it...?!










Nonetheless, the existing 7.1 Front Wide speaker layouts all 'revolve around' the speakers 'defined' by SMPTE 428M, which we might think of as being '_5.1 Standard_ speaker layout, plus extensions'. The speaker configurations contemplated by SMPTE 2036 (etc.) for the next few decades 'with bigger screens' offer the possibility of five front speakers across the screen (like SDDS), with (defined) locations for a pair of Front Wide speakers beyond the edges of the screen (e.g., 'draft' "IEC General Channel Assignment Of Multichannel Audio" model, although it seems very unlikely we'd ever want to use all possible speakers on any one playback layout!







).

_And the big winners are . . . the amp and speaker manufacturers...?!_


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dan Hitchman* /forum/post/18477789
> 
> 
> Good thing! Gone are the giant, legendary 70mm screens of yore that could utilize 5 behind the screen channels. . .



. . . But if the CEMs get their way, there will be giant screens in everybody's living room within the next 10 or so years . . . with 70" to 100" deemed 'appropriate' for most homes and up to 200" for 'serious' viewers (and a 200" set has an 8' tall screen...!!!!) And 3D that size will certainly 'replicate the theater experience'!










_I guess 'the video wall' is coming whether we want it or not...!_


----------



## mgkdragn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/18478266
> 
> 
> . . . But if the CEMs get their way, there will be giant screens in everybody's living room within the next 10 or so years . . . with 70" to 100" deemed 'appropriate' for most homes and up to 200" for 'serious' viewers (and a 200" set has an 8' tall screen...!!!!) And 3D that size will certainly 'replicate the theater experience'!
> 
> 
> 
> _I guess 'the video wall' is coming whether we want it or not...!_



Can't wait. It would be nice if OLED was developed so we could just paste our screens up like wallpaper. I want my own Holo Deck.


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mgkdragn* /forum/post/18478304
> 
> 
> Can't wait. It would be nice if OLED was developed so we could just paste our screens up like wallpaper. I want my own Holo Deck.



Don't get too attached to full-wall-sized tv: Each 'generational advance' happens at around 20 to 30 years! But it looks like 'the next size up after SHV' for displays will be too big for our living rooms . . . _so maybe it will just have to fit inside our heads...?!_


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mgkdragn* /forum/post/18478304
> 
> 
> Can't wait. It would be nice if OLED was developed so we could just paste our screens up like wallpaper. I want my own Holo Deck.



Speaking of OLED (and 3D):

*LG's 15" AMOLED panel used in a professional 3D monitor*



> Quote:
> We just learned that VLogic has unveiled a new professional 3D monitor - the TDM-150W. It uses a 15" AMOLED panel, which is the same one as used in LG's EL9500 OLED TV (it has the same specs: 1366x768 and 100,000:1 contras ratio). It's great to hear that LG are also offering the 15" panel for other products.


 http://www.oled-info.com/lgs-15-amol...nal-3d-monitor


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *uscboy* /forum/post/18452052
> 
> 
> Life is 3D in case you haven't realized that yet.



Yes, but life is true 3D, as opposed to the Stereoscopic (S3D) images provided by 3DTV and 3D film. In the former, there are infinite differences in the distance from our eyes to the objects of interest, generating truly spacial images. In the latter, the images are derived from just two points of reference.


While 3D film and 3DTV may generate some interesting effects, it cannot be compared to true 3D. The only technology capable of generating true 3D images is holography.


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18478939
> 
> 
> The only technology capable of generating true 3D images is holography.



Don't you still get _vergence-accommodation_ issues viewing these [if I'm not mistaken, still mostly theoretical!] 'Hollywood movie' holograms -- when you look 'though' and "out the other side" in some scene that purports to exceed the [native space] dimensions of the hologram? (_unless there some kind of pseudo refractive effect or space-time bending to compensate...?_







)


----------



## cctvtech

I agree that holography is not perfect, but its spacial qualities are superior to the "layers of flat images" that Stereoscopy tends to provide. Perhaps someday, laser holography will be perfected and we will have true 3D media.


----------



## rantanamo

If you don't want it, don't buy it. Otherwise, its the only way to stop the TV price freefall for the CE companies.


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mzpro5* /forum/post/18473323
> 
> 
> Interesting - TV's will now come with a health warning and oh yeah don't let your young kids watch any 3D material.
> 
> http://www.samsung.com/au/3d-tv/warning.html



That's hilarious! My favorites are:


"_• Pregnant women, the elderly, sufferers of serious medical conditions, those who are sleep deprived or under the influence of alcohol should avoid utilising the unit’s 3D functionality._" - *"You're too (pregnant, old, sick, tired, drunk) to watch that show in 3D"*


"_•If you experience any of the following symptoms, stop viewing 3D pictures immediately and consult a medical specialist:

1.altered vision;

2.lightheadedness;

3.dizziness;

4.involuntary movements such as eye or muscle twitching;

5.confusion;

6.nausea;

7.convulsions;

8.cramps; and/ or

9.disorientation._" - *"Doctor, I just watched Piranha 3D"*


"_It is recommended that users take frequent breaks to lessen the potential of these effects._" - *Theaters will have to return to intermissions.*


"_•Viewing in 3D may cause disorientation for some viewers. Accordingly, DO NOT place your TV television near open stairwells, cables, balconies, or other objects that can be tripped over, run into, knocked down, broken or fallen over._ " - *Think of the slapstick comedy implications of that statement.*


----------



## Dan Hitchman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/18478266
> 
> 
> . . . But if the CEMs get their way, there will be giant screens in everybody's living room within the next 10 or so years . . . with 70" to 100" deemed 'appropriate' for most homes and up to 200" for 'serious' viewers (and a 200" set has an 8' tall screen...!!!!) And 3D that size will certainly 'replicate the theater experience'!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _I guess 'the video wall' is coming whether we want it or not...!_



Trouble is: you'll be lucky to get 4kx2k (Sony digital cinema grade... that's if the digital file was rendered at 4k and not upconverted from 2k) in a consumer product. You can't download it with current broadband infrastructure with any passable quality, and you'll need quite the disc capacity and bitrate to contain it (plus doing the inevitable 3D version), especially if they finally move past 8 bit consumer colorspacing. You'll practically need to wear cotton gloves because of the pit density issues. Blu-ray is bad enough with smudges and fingerprints. Hell, the studios can't even deliver true 1920x1080p without transfer and mastering and compression concerns on regular Blu-ray!


Even if we could get passed all those hurdles, you remember just how crazy the fight to even get Blu-ray was? The studios and the CE industry never learn. And PPV downloads are what they've always been itching for irrespective of A/V quality.


Now, what if James Cameron got his way and they started using 48 fps? 4k at 48 fps would be spectacular, but the data file size would be quite big if you don't want gobs of compression wrecking everything and adding 10 channel, 24 bit lossless audio or the like.


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dan Hitchman* /forum/post/18479214
> 
> 
> Trouble is: you'll be lucky to get 4kx2k (Sony digital cinema grade... that's if the digital file was rendered at 4k and not upconverted from 2k) in a consumer product. You can't download it with current broadband infrastructure with any passable quality, and you'll need quite the disc capacity and bitrate to contain it (plus doing the inevitable 3D version). You'll practically need to wear cotton gloves because of the pit density issues. Blu-ray is bad enough with smudges and fingerprints. Hell, the studios can't even deliver true 1920x1080p without transfer and mastering and compression concerns on regular Blu-ray!
> 
> 
> Even if we could get passed all those hurdles, you remember just how crazy the fight to even get Blu-ray was? The studios and the CE industry never learn. And PPV downloads are what they've always been itching for irrespective of A/V quality.



There are already a handful of 8k4k cameras in existence and being used for testing.


In 2009, some Direct Broadcast Satellite trials of 3 channel 7680x4320 transmission were performed (apparently there were problems with reception when it rained!







)


4th Generation Optical Disks with capacities in the 200GB to 1000GB range are already under development for data storage purposes.


I'm pretty sure _to-home_ broadband can be stepped up to the required download speeds...?


To me, this all sounds just like the implementation issues that existed with HDMI/HDTV/BD around 10 to 15 years ago...?!


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18478939
> 
> 
> Yes, but life is true 3D, as opposed to the Stereoscopic (S3D) images provided by 3DTV and 3D film. In the former, there are infinite differences in the distance from our eyes to the objects of interest, generating truly spacial images. In the latter, the images are derived from just two points of reference.
> 
> 
> While 3D film and 3DTV may generate some interesting effects, it cannot be compared to true 3D. The only technology capable of generating true 3D images is holography.



Human depth perception depends on many visual cues, not just parallax, which is what 3D video is solely dependent on.


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/18479329
> 
> 
> There are already a handful of 8k4k cameras in existence and being used for testing.
> 
> 
> In 2009, some Direct Broadcast Satellite trials of 3 channel 7680x4320 transmission were performed (apparently there were problems with reception when it rained!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> 
> 4th Generation Optical Disks with capacities in the 200GB to 1000GB range are already under development for data storage purposes.
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure _to-home_ broadband can be stepped up to the required download speeds...?
> 
> 
> To me, this all sounds just like the implementation issues that existed with HDMI/HDTV/BD around 10 to 15 years ago...?!



Correct.


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken H* /forum/post/18479414
> 
> 
> Human depth perception depends on many visual cues, not just parallax, which is what 3D video is solely dependent on.



The two [other visual cues] most noticeable to me are: 'Inconsistent' focus/depth of field sensations, which seems to exacerbate vergence-accommodation issues (and I think might affect older people more...?), and also 2nd order (small motion interaction with) parallax discrepancies [in the real world, your POV moves slightly 'all the time', so there are subtle change to the parallax "detail" you see from objects; in a current-technology, flat-screen 3D movie there are no 'near trivial' changes in perspective consequent to minor head motion, and the 'solidity' of nominally 3D objects becomes questionable!]


----------



## Raymond42262




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nineteen70* /forum/post/18438741
> 
> 
> I was in a furniture store today and they had the movie up on it looked really good in 1080. Now I asked myself will 3d make it look that much better and my answer was no. Now the other question I ask myself is that would I like to watch sports in 3D yes and after going to the movies and seeing 3d on a huge screen and having a projector setup myself why would I want to watch 3d on a 46" lcd or plasma so like serialmike said yes and no.



Well, 3D movies are filmed with that feature in mind.

And ditto for 2D. So the plot and direction, special effects etc...will be different for both formats to get the best results from each.


Personally, I will have to suspend my judgement. I did not think Avatar was outstanding and neither was the movie I saw on display at Fry's. But it was after Fry's that I learned that I have a cataract in my right eye and it's hard to see 3D properly when you are technically blind in one eye .


I'll watch it again after I get my vision fixed.


----------



## MrEastSide




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *trumperZ06* /forum/post/18466565
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BINGO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO... sports broadcasts will drive the acceptance of 3D TV...
> 
> 
> to the general public.



Why would anyone have any desire to watch sports in 3D? For some cheap thrills making it look like a homerun is flying out of your TV and into your living room? I mean, really... I hear everyone saying sports will make 3D technology shine. Why? What would be so special and or cool a bout watching sports in 3D that 3D movies wouldn't already have? Will it feel like the players are standing in my living room running around my chair as they round the bases?


End of the day; I just have no desire to wear glasses for 10 hours of TV watching during the day. When there is no glasses 3D I might care, but until then, I don't care how good it looks. I'm not wearing glasses all day long to watch movies and play games. 3D is already DOA to me.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/18478266
> 
> 
> . . . But if the CEMs get their way, there will be giant screens in everybody's living room within the next 10 or so years . . . with 70" to 100" deemed 'appropriate' for most homes and up to 200" for 'serious' viewers (and a 200" set has an 8' tall screen...!!!!) And 3D that size will certainly 'replicate the theater experience'!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _I guess 'the video wall' is coming whether we want it or not...!_





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dan Hitchman* /forum/post/18479214
> 
> 
> Trouble is: you'll be lucky to get 4kx2k (Sony digital cinema grade... that's if the digital file was rendered at 4k and not upconverted from 2k) in a consumer product. You can't download it with current broadband infrastructure with any passable quality, and you'll need quite the disc capacity and bitrate to contain it (plus doing the inevitable 3D version), especially if they finally move past 8 bit consumer colorspacing. You'll practically need to wear cotton gloves because of the pit density issues. Blu-ray is bad enough with smudges and fingerprints. Hell, the studios can't even deliver true 1920x1080p without transfer and mastering and compression concerns on regular Blu-ray!
> 
> 
> Even if we could get passed all those hurdles, you remember just how crazy the fight to even get Blu-ray was? The studios and the CE industry never learn. And PPV downloads are what they've always been itching for irrespective of A/V quality.
> 
> 
> Now, what if James Cameron got his way and they started using 48 fps? 4k at 48 fps would be spectacular, but the data file size would be quite big if you don't want gobs of compression wrecking everything and adding 10 channel, 24 bit lossless audio or the like.



Not to mention, people aren't going to start having 100" screens become the norm in their houses, that will just never happen. People can say all they want about technology moving forward and things being inevitable, but the average person does not have rooms in their house big enough to house a 100"-200" screen, so this high-resolution will never become the norm for in-home viewing.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MrEastSide* /forum/post/18480225
> 
> 
> Why would anyone have any desire to watch sports in 3D? For some cheap thrills making it look like a homerun is flying out of your TV and into your living room? I mean, really... I hear everyone saying sports will make 3D technology shine. Why? What would be so special and or cool a bout watching sports in 3D that 3D movies wouldn't already have? Will it feel like the players are standing in my living room running around my chair as they round the bases?



LOL! That is NOT what you see when you watch sports in 3D. It is like you are right at the edge of the basketball court/baseball infield/racetrack.


3D is no longer for having things pop out of the screen. Guess you didn't see AVATAR did you?



> Quote:
> End of the day; I just have no desire to wear glasses for 10 hours of TV watching during the day. When there is no glasses 3D I might care, but until then, I don't care how good it looks. I'm not wearing glasses all day long to watch movies and play games. 3D is already DOA to me.



10 hours? We will be lucky to get 3 hours.


But, it sounds like 3D just isn't for you. That's OK. Others will enjoy what you don't.



> Quote:
> Not to mention, people aren't going to start having 100" screens become the norm in their houses, that will just never happen. People can say all they want about technology moving forward and things being inevitable, but the average person does not have rooms in their house big enough to house a 100"-200" screen, so this high-resolution will never become the norm for in-home viewing.



Super Hi Vision is decades away. No telling how the home theater market will change in that long a time period.


Not too long ago, most people had a 27" display.


----------



## MrEastSide




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18480349
> 
> 
> LOL! That is NOT what you see when you watch sports in 3D. It is like you are right at the edge of the basketball court/baseball infield/racetrack.
> 
> 
> 3D is no longer for having things pop out of the screen. Guess you didn't see AVATAR did you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 hours? We will be lucky to get 3 hours.
> 
> 
> But, it sounds like 3D just isn't for you. That's OK. Others will enjoy what you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Super Hi Vision is decades away. No telling how the home theater market will change in that long a time period.
> 
> 
> Not too long ago, most people had a 27" display.



Well, I was being a little sarcastic with the balls flying into the living room comment. LOL! I just don't see the desire to feel like I'm at the game, if I want that, I'll go to one. LOL! As far as the 10 hour thing, well, I only bring that up because a lot of people think 3D is going to be everything, all the time sooner or later, and I just can't imagine wearing glasses all the damn time.


And while I'm certain that the home theater market will change a lot over the next 20 years, that won't change the fact that most people won't have adequate seating space or the right viewing distances for 100+ inch screens in their house, other than the rich folk with huge houses and huge rooms.


----------



## Bill

Sports don't show 3D very well, the camera is too far away. Soccer will be a total waste.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bill* /forum/post/18480431
> 
> 
> Sports don't show 3D very well, the camera is too far away. Soccer will be a total waste.



You should let Sony know so they won't waste their money doing soccer in 3D. I'm sure they don't have a clue how it's going to look even though they did spend a huge amount of time and money on research and development and trucks.


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MrEastSide* /forum/post/18480396
> 
> 
> And while I'm certain that the home theater market will change a lot over the next 20 years, that won't change the fact that most people won't have adequate seating space or the right viewing distances for 100+ inch screens in their house, other than the rich folk with huge houses and huge rooms.


_If you believe the current optical research (above)..._


100" display => screen height ~4' => optimal viewing distance for immersion 2D/3D with 4320 line and 20/20 vision (0.75 x screen height) ~3'.


If sitting only 3' from the screen is "too close!" then you can buy a 200" display (double everything!) and then sit 6' from the screen (and maybe the 'visual sweet spot' can fit the whole family.


...and that's the 'marketing reality' of selling "immersion 3D" to sports or adult video fans (plus lots of other folk too!) Regardless of the skepticism on this forum, there are a lot of corporations banking on selling these big sets to 'everyone' in just about a decade!


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/18480580
> 
> _If you believe the current optical research (above)..._
> 
> 
> 100" display => screen height ~4' => optimal viewing distance for immersion 2D/3D with 4320 line and 20/20 vision (0.75 x screen height) ~3'.
> 
> 
> If sitting only 3' from the screen is "too close!" then you can buy a 200" display (double everything!) and then sit 6' from the screen (and maybe the 'visual sweet spot' can fit the whole family.
> 
> 
> ...and that's the 'marketing reality' of selling "immersion 3D" to sports or adult video fans (plus lots of other folk too!) Regardless of the skepticism on this forum, there are a lot of corporations banking on selling these big sets to 'everyone' in just about a decade!



A decade? LOL - we will be lucky to see 2160P in a decade.


You can wax lyrical all you want about Super Hi Vision. The chances it will come to the USA in the next 20 years are two - slim and none and slim left town.


----------



## nates25




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bill* /forum/post/18480431
> 
> 
> Sports don't show 3D very well, the camera is too far away. Soccer will be a total waste.



I watched the NCAA championship game at a theater in 3D. The illusion of depth and total immersion has me convinced watching basketball, as well as other sports, will be a major force in driving home adoption of 3D TV's. It's the closest you can get to being at the event... simply stunning to watch! ESPN agrees.


----------



## MrEastSide




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/18480580
> 
> _If you believe the current optical research (above)..._
> 
> 
> 100" display => screen height ~4' => optimal viewing distance for immersion 2D/3D with 4320 line and 20/20 vision (0.75 x screen height) ~3'.
> 
> 
> If sitting only 3' from the screen is "too close!" then you can buy a 200" display (double everything!) and then sit 6' from the screen (and maybe the 'visual sweet spot' can fit the whole family.
> 
> 
> ...and that's the 'marketing reality' of selling "immersion 3D" to sports or adult video fans (plus lots of other folk too!) Regardless of the skepticism on this forum, there are a lot of corporations banking on selling these big sets to 'everyone' in just about a decade!



And I'm hoping these corporations fall flat on their faces so it sends a message throughout the industry that people aren't fackin' stupid.


And 3 feet away for a 100" screen, yikes on the eye strain. At least for me!


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18480615
> 
> 
> A decade? LOL - we will be lucky to see 2160P in a decade.
> 
> 
> You can wax lyrical all you want about Super Hi Vision. The chances it will come to the USA in the next 20 years are two - slim and none and slim left town.


_True! There's no reason for the US to move from HDTV1 to HDTV2/HDTV4 resolution broadcasting:_ The analog-to-digital switch only made sense because Washington could resell the recovered spectrum, but there's no money for the government in switching over-the-air transmission from 1080 to 4320! And, IIRC, some 60+% of the US population is serviced by DBS and cable, so that probably means it would cost 'more per household' to upgrade the resolution of the over-the-air broadcasts which reach the remaining 30+% of the population [that mainly/mostly/somewhat(?) lives in 'less accessible' places]. And so 'nobody' cares!


But cable, DBS, and internet steamers will do anything not actually criminal to get your monthly rental fees (_oh wait! they really will commit criminal acts...!?_) So I'm content to leave decisions about SHV to the common sense of the US public, and the high moral standards of the cable, satellite, and internet providers...!?







[_"Mr. Minow! What time does the vast wasteland start in 3D?"_]


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MrEastSide* /forum/post/18480697
> 
> 
> And I'm hoping these corporations fall flat on their faces so it sends a message throughout the industry that people aren't fackin' stupid.
> 
> 
> And 3 feet away for a 100" screen, yikes on the eye strain. At least for me!


_And for me too! But . . ._


> Quote:
> So how should we watch Avatar according to [Director James Cameron]? He wants us to shell out for the Blu-ray 3D version coming out in November 2010, and then, "*If you're going to go 3D, go big. Get the biggest set you can, and then sit as close as you can stand. That's my advice. Get the coffee table out of the way and slide the couch over, right in front of the TV.*"



And if you sat 3½' from a 100" diagonal (16x9) screen, you would indeed actually be just beyond the max distance at which you can fully resolve 4320p (7680x4320) with 20/20 vision.


----------



## Chris_TC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18478939
> 
> 
> Yes, but life is true 3D, as opposed to the Stereoscopic (S3D) images provided by 3DTV and 3D film. In the former, there are infinite differences in the distance from our eyes to the objects of interest, generating truly spacial images. In the latter, the images are derived from just two points of reference.



What are you talking about? Human beings only have two points of reference: their eyes. With stereoscopic images you just don't the ability to move your head and look at the scene from a different point of view because the perspective is fixed.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18479087
> 
> 
> I agree that holography is not perfect, but its spacial qualities are superior to the "layers of flat images" that Stereoscopy tends to provide.



Stereoscopy has nothing to do with layers of flat images. If you shoot native stereoscopic footage you get an unlimited number of "layers" (there aren't any).


And even if we had holographic displays: how would you record live-action content for it considering you'd need an infinite or at least a very large number of perspectives?


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris_TC* /forum/post/18481116
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? Human beings only have two points of reference: their eyes.



Humans have only two points of audio reference: their ears. So then do you want to limit us to two channel sound? What is the relationship, really, between physiology and dimensionality?


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18480349
> 
> 
> 3D is no longer for having things pop out of the screen. Guess you didn't see AVATAR did you?



Guess *you* didn't see the previews of Piranha 3D did you?


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris_TC* /forum/post/18481116
> 
> 
> Stereoscopy has nothing to do with layers of flat images. If you shoot native stereoscopic footage you get an unlimited number of "layers" (there aren't any).



Not to many people, including me. I perceive the same effect with a Viewmaster.


----------



## walford




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bill* /forum/post/18480431
> 
> 
> Sports don't show 3D very well, the camera is too far away. Soccer will be a total waste.



Bill,

I saw one link that stated 3D content from a 3D camera behind a socceer goal is quite spectacular wheras 2D content from the same location is very uninteresting.

One of the problem is the best locations for cameras for 2D viewing and for 3D viewing are not the same for sporting events and at the present time this is why separate 2D and 3D camera crews will be used for sporting events in the forseable future. Certainly in the future we can expect a combined camera crew with some cameras that will only be used for the 2D broadcast and others that will only be used for the separate 3D broadcast.


----------



## mzpro5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *walford* /forum/post/18481588
> 
> 
> Bill,
> 
> I saw one link that stated 3D content from a 3D camera behind a socceer goal is quite spectacular wheras 2D content from the same location is very uninteresting.



Quite honestly whether 2D or 3D soccer is very uninteresting.


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MrEastSide* /forum/post/18480697
> 
> 
> And I'm hoping these corporations fall flat on their faces so it sends a message throughout the industry that people aren't fackin' stupid.
> 
> 
> And 3 feet away for a 100" screen, yikes on the eye strain. At least for me!



The exact same sentiment many people had when told they need a 48" HDTV, because they sit 6' from where the TV stand is.


The chart above explains. Higher resolutions require sitting closer to the display for effective viewing.


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken H* /forum/post/18481830
> 
> 
> Higher resolutions require sitting closer to the display for effective viewing.


----------



## defiancecp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee* /forum/post/18481212
> 
> 
> Humans have only two points of audio reference: their ears. So then do you want to limit us to two channel sound? What is the relationship, really, between physiology and dimensionality?



Your analogy is completely unworkable. Our current audio production technology only permits us to make sound originate from a point. Thus, in order to emulate sounds originating from multiple points we have no choice but to use multiple speakers. We have different problems and different solutions for video (when's the last time you simulated an image using 6 light bulbs at specific points around you??). Audio and video are so completely different animals - I would say your analogy is like comparing apples to oranges, but it's more like comparing apples to dipping a donkey in a vat of hydrochloric acid.


----------



## mgkdragn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *defiancecp* /forum/post/18482919
> 
> 
> I would say your analogy is like comparing apples to oranges, but it's more like comparing apples to dipping a donkey in a vat of hydrochloric acid.



can I use that in my next book..??


----------



## Ken McPherson

I think the analogy works rather well.


I'm old enough to remember when audio was one channel. Maybe through multiple speakers, maybe "HiFi", but still one channel.


Visionaries in the audio business realized that, because we have two ears, it made sense to develop technology that employed two channels, in an attempt to to get closer to what humans hear in the real world.


The transition was shaky for a while, and most people were skeptical at first. They didn't get why two channels would be worth the additional expense. Many people said it was just a gimmick to get them to buy new equipment. And that was partially true.


Different parts of the entertainment industry had to do things in new ways that cost them big bucks. Movie studios had to reinvent the way they recorded films. Music studios needed to learn how to use multiple microphones to best effect. They had to learn how to put a separator between the singers and the drums. Movie theaters had to replace all their sound equipment at great expense. Tubes turned into transistors. Pretty soon, albums in records stores started coming in two versions, mono or stereo. And yes, they all did it because they hoped it would make lots of money.


Then the creative types began to get their hands on it. Brian Wilson and they Beatles weren't interested in the tech side, per se. They just knew you could do incredible new things with the technology, and they began to dig in.


The artists kept pushing the boundaries. They built their own studios. Soon, two channels just weren't enough for them. First 4 track... then 16 track. A mike for every instrument! They had to create huge sound mixers and find people who could run them. But they were doing it for the Art! And for the money.


After a decade, you couldn't find a mono album in a record store; not that millions of people didn't hang on to their mono's and play them on a regular basis.


Then, a few years later, somebody pointed out in real life, we're actually surrounded by sound... and that lead to a whole new chapter.


Everything that happened in the change from mono to stereo is happening right now in the change from 2D to 3D.


We're just at a very early stage. We're still learning how to separate the singers from the drummers. The artists aren't

even in the room yet. (Sorry Cameron, IMO you're an incredible visionary; not so much an artist.)


IMO, once the initial kinks are inevitably smoothed out and the real artists get a hold of 3D, they will blow our minds. That's what real artists do.


And then skeptics can go on and be skeptical about something else. That's what they do.


Thanks for the mono to stereo analogy. I hadn't thought of it before.


----------



## Dan Hitchman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18482288



Get away from the TV set, Jimmy! You'll melt your brains!!!










---


As for televised 3D, currently you're asked to choose: HD _or_ 3D, not both. The broadcasters and re-broadcasters would have to re-do their infrastructure and send out all new decoder boxes. Like that's going to happen anytime soon.


And "HD-lite", which is what we get from most providers, for the most part is of atrocious quality, especially when dealing with the all-important sports.


Oh my, the compression artifacts are literally flying at me!!


----------



## Chris_TC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee* /forum/post/18481212
> 
> 
> Humans have only two points of audio reference: their ears. So then do you want to limit us to two channel sound? What is the relationship, really, between physiology and dimensionality?



It's not about _wanting_ the limit, it's about accepting what's possible right now and what isn't.

Ears aren't very good at locating sounds, that's why a handful of speakers is enough to approximate a realistic surround environment.


6 cameras on the other hand wouldn't get you very far. You'd need way more perspectives than that to approximate a full 3d scene. And even if you could interpolate between those 6 perspectives somewhat reasonably, you'd still need to deal with 6 times the amount of data. Directors, DPs and VFX artists would commit suicide in droves.


So if I were you I wouldn't hold my breath.


----------



## taz291819

After testing 3D on my display for a few months, I could easily see sitting 5 1/2 - 6' away from a 100" display. I'm currently sitting 5 1/2' from my 61", which doesn't bother me in the least, even for 2D.


3' on a 100" screen may be pushing it, imo.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tony6225* /forum/post/18438265
> 
> 
> I agree for the most part. 3D is going to be a gimmick until it can be viewed without glasses.



This is the main reason why it will stay a gimmick and even fail if no one buys into it.


Think about this. THere was a game a week or so ago Isles vs Rangers in 3D. NO ONE FROM THIS FORUM AVS SEEN IT AT HOME.


IF the early adopters here didn't and haven't got into this much beyond getting a 3D tv or 3D capable tv, that tells you where 3D isn't going, mainstream.


----------



## Hughmc

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frjqM...ayer_embedded# !


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nates25* /forum/post/18480673
> 
> 
> I watched the NCAA championship game at a theater in 3D. The illusion of depth and total immersion has me convinced watching basketball, as well as other sports, will be a major force in driving home adoption of 3D TV's. It's the closest you can get to being at the event... simply stunning to watch! ESPN agrees.




But what would that have looked like on a 50" flat panel from your couch 10' away ?


Art


----------



## Art Sonneborn

For the home, I honestly see 3D as a gamers dream. I can see being very interested in getting a system for my kids but I'm still just not seeing it being very interesting ,at least in an average home setting, for much else.



Art


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18486341
> 
> 
> This is the main reason why it will stay a gimmick and even fail if no one buys into it.
> 
> 
> Think about this. THere was a game a week or so ago Isles vs Rangers in 3D. NO ONE FROM THIS FORUM AVS SEEN IT AT HOME.
> 
> 
> IF the early adopters here didn't and haven't got into this much beyond getting a 3D tv or 3D capable tv, that tells you where 3D isn't going, mainstream.













All that means is that few if any people on Long Island have a new 3DTV. It was a Cablevision exclusive.


Plenty of people saw The Masters in 3D both through CBL and Online.


----------



## MrEastSide

 http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=4442 


Awesome. The warnings are starting to emerge, and from Samsung, a company pushing the technology, no less. Makes me even less interested in 3D than I was before.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MrEastSide* /forum/post/18488478
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=4442
> 
> 
> Awesome. The warnings are starting to emerge, and from Samsung, a company pushing the technology, no less. Makes me even less interested in 3D than I was before.



LOL! You ever read the manual that came with your cell phone? My has 5 pages worth of warnings and legal mumbo jumbo.


Has it stopped you from having and using a cell phone?


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18488685
> 
> 
> LOL! You ever read the manual that came with your cell phone? My has 5 pages worth of warnings and legal mumbo jumbo.
> 
> 
> Has it stopped you from having and using a cell phone?



It didn't stop me!


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MrEastSide* /forum/post/18488478
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=4442
> 
> 
> Awesome. The warnings are starting to emerge, and from Samsung, a company pushing the technology, no less. Makes me even less interested in 3D than I was before.



This is just a compilation of the "possible and foreseeable" consequences of using similar/related/included [optical] equipment. So it hardly seems newsworthy...


What any CEM should really say on *every* product is "Warning! Use of our product exposes you to the possibly adverse side effects of all known and unknown _Bio-Physics interaction_ laws in _Local Space-Time_!". But some might argue that such a warning is 'a little too general', and that its comprehension and evaluation to make a purchase decision requires advanced education/training in at least three separate disciplines...?! So maybe we should just settle for a (simple) *Danger!* . . . or perhaps for just one page of 'reasonably worded' guidelines...?


----------



## MrEastSide




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18488685
> 
> 
> LOL! You ever read the manual that came with your cell phone? My has 5 pages worth of warnings and legal mumbo jumbo.
> 
> 
> Has it stopped you from having and using a cell phone?



Indeed, I have. But, I don't know any cell phone manual that warns of things such as this;


* Altered vision

* Lightheadedness

* Dizziness

* Involuntary movements such as eye or muscle twitching

* Confusion

* Nausea

* Convulsions

* Cramps

* Disorientation


Doesn't exactly make one enthusiastic about the tech.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MrEastSide* /forum/post/18489929
> 
> 
> Indeed, I have. But, I don't know any cell phone manual that warns of things such as this;
> 
> 
> * Altered vision
> 
> * Lightheadedness
> 
> * Dizziness
> 
> * Involuntary movements such as eye or muscle twitching
> 
> * Confusion
> 
> * Nausea
> 
> * Convulsions
> 
> * Cramps
> 
> * Disorientation
> 
> 
> Doesn't exactly make one enthusiastic about the tech.



ALL of those are based on people having imperfect binocular vision. If there is nothing wrong with your vision meaning you are Stereo Acute - you will experience none of those symptoms.


Most people aren't even aware of their imperfect binocular vision. It takes wearing S3D glasses (active or passive) to find it out. Their imperfections don't show themselves otherwise.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18489984
> 
> 
> Their imperfections don't show themselves otherwise.



Don't you just hate people like that.










Art


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/18490546
> 
> 
> Don't you just hate people like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art



Nah . . . . but I do feel some sympathy for them. Or is it empathy? Which one shows you care less?


----------



## lcaillo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18489984
> 
> 
> ALL of those are based on people having imperfect binocular vision. If there is nothing wrong with your vision meaning you are Stereo Acute - you will experience none of those symptoms.
> 
> 
> Most people aren't even aware of their imperfect binocular vision. It takes wearing S3D glasses (active or passive) to find it out. Their imperfections don't show themselves otherwise.



Nonsense. One can test binocular vision simply by focusing on two objects lined up in the visual field at different distances alternatively. There are varying degrees of binocular effectiveness among individuals. Many people find disruptions to the visual field, as effected by 3d presentations, discomforting to very uncomfortable. The issue is not simply mechanical and vision related, but also affected by perceptual tendencies and ability to process visual information in different regions simultaneously. There are as many variations on the process as there are in any other attempt to describe individual differnces in perception and behaviour.


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18489984
> 
> 
> Most people aren't even aware of their imperfect binocular vision. It takes wearing S3D glasses (active or passive) to find it out. Their imperfections don't show themselves otherwise.



Perhaps the medical profession could use 3DTV as a diagnostic tool?


----------



## Rammitinski

I have to say that it was kind of funny when people in the Magnolia I was in the other night were going up to the display and trying it, and almost every one of them walked away muttering "I don't see what's so great about it".


----------



## mgkdragn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rammitinski* /forum/post/18493958
> 
> 
> I have to say that it was kind of funny when people in the Magnolia I was in the other night were going up to the display and trying it, and almost every one of them walked away muttering "I don't see what's so great about it".



It was even funnier at the one I was at.. people broke into seizures, walked into walls, tripped over their own feet..


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18493474
> 
> 
> Perhaps the medical profession could use 3DTV as a diagnostic tool?



They already do, and have for over a decade.


Stereo visualization is used in automotive, medical, oil & gas, educational, military, control room, and many other fields and industries.


----------



## rls_ny

The OP is completely wrong and I can prove it easily. These are pretty close to actual conversations in my house.


HDTV conversation a few years ago:


Me: We should get HD TV. It is really cool

Wife: Doesn't look any different to me

Me: Yes it does, look again!

Wife: Whatever


3D TV conversation last week:


Me: We should get a new TV for the living room

Wife: Can we get it in 3D?


I don't think this is a joke. HD appealed to a certain type of person - maybe we can be called technophiles or avsforum junkies. 3D is something anyone can experience and is a fundamental change. Don't bet against this one. In fact, the wise money is on designer 3D glasses.


----------



## JOHNnDENVER

I even think the old style analglyph (red / green glasses) is fun and decently cool, the new stuff is a big step up from that. I'm actually excited to do my first major 3D screening in my own theater with the active glasses.


----------



## HokeySmoke




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18489984
> 
> 
> ALL of those are based on people having imperfect binocular vision. If there is nothing wrong with your vision meaning you are Stereo Acute - you will experience none of those symptoms.




Along with binocular vision you need to also include susceptibility to motion sickness and flicker sensitivity. This is not just about having perfect vision.


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rls_ny* /forum/post/18494748
> 
> 
> These are pretty close to actual conversations in my house....
> 
> 
> Me: We should get a new TV for the living room
> 
> Wife: Can we get it in 3D?



My house:


Me: When our TV dies, 3D TVs will probably be very common.

Her: You're not spending money on that ****!


----------



## mgkdragn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18494958
> 
> 
> My house:
> 
> 
> Me: When our TV dies, 3D TVs will probably be very common.
> 
> Her: You're not spending money on that ****!



I think I married her sister


----------



## JOHNnDENVER

A few outtings to the pay theaters for a couple of 3D movie releases, a few chek out the demo's while we were picking up media and badda bing badda booom, I got her talked into it. I am just hope'n for a damn compatible projector to come out before she changes her damn mind!!!


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HokeySmoke* /forum/post/18494893
> 
> 
> Along with binocular vision you need to also include susceptibility to motion sickness and flicker sensitivity. This is not just about having perfect vision.



Presumably those who suffer optically triggered adverse effects from 3D tv will restrict the time/mode of their subsequent 3D tv viewing, in the extreme, perhaps never watching 3D tv again, only 2D tv [just as those who suffer vertigo, motion sickness, etc., from watching 2D tv today must 'manage' their viewing habits.]


The questions are: What percentage of the population are adversely affected? How severe are the symptoms? How complete the recovery? Can affected persons avoid (non trivial) re-exposure?


----------



## naus

3D is going to finally take off this time and will no longer be just a novelty. The reason: Playstation 3 and 3D video games.


I can see real potential with 3D video games.


----------



## Rudy1

In addition to a couple of visits to the Magic Eye Theater at EPCOT, I've seen 3D at IMAX theaters, and neither the Panasonic or the Samsung demos impressed me as much as these other presentations did. I don't get the illusion of fullness or of things "leaping off the screen" with either of them...just a series of razor-sharp but flat images floating one in front of the other. Is this what the new 3D-for-the-home technologies supposed to look like? I distinctly remember at the Magic Eye Theater being so convinced by the illusion of fullness that I reached out to grab an asteroid that appeared to float rotating right above my seat, as well as feeling as though I could actually look around the characters onscreen if I were to change my seating position. Maybe I'm expecting far too much in a home setting?


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1* /forum/post/18495316
> 
> 
> In addition to a couple of visits to the Magic Eye Theater at EPCOT, I've seen 3D at IMAX theaters, and neither the Panasonic or the Samsung demos impressed me as much as these other presentations did. I don't get the illusion of fullness or of things "leaping off the screen" with either of them...just a series of razor-sharp but flat images floating one in front of the other. Is this what the new 3D-for-the-home technologies supposed to look like? I distinctly remember at the Magic Eye Theater being so convinced by the illusion of fullness that I reached out to grab an asteroid that appeared to float rotating right above my seat, as well as feeling as though I could actually look around the characters onscreen if I were to change my seating position. Maybe I'm expecting far too much in a home setting?



They are not using 3D much any more to have crap fly out of the screen into your face. That is 3D The Gimmick.


Now they are using 3D to act as a balcony, so you the viewer are immersed into the images being presented before you. That is 3D The Story Telling Feature.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1* /forum/post/18495316
> 
> 
> ... flat images floating one in front of the other. Is this what the new 3D-for-the-home technologies supposed to look like?



No, of course not. I've seen this criticism leveled at movies converted from 2D. I don't see any reason that home 3D system should suffer from the cardboard-cutout effect any more than other 3D systems (but maybe there is a reason), and I suspect it's a problem with the source, rather than the display system.


----------



## Chris_TC

Reading some of these comments of not being impressed and the images looking flat, I'm starting to suspect that the 3d demos in a lot places are using the auto conversion feature as opposed to native 3d content.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *naus* /forum/post/18495274
> 
> 
> 3D is going to finally take off this time and will no longer be just a novelty. The reason: Playstation 3 and 3D video games.
> 
> 
> I can see real potential with 3D video games.



My feelings as well. I'm not a gamer but I just can't see how this won't be like the second coming for those who are.


Art


----------



## Paul_Seng

I have written in this thread about my wife's reaction (positive) to the demos at best buy. My thing is that these TV's are relatively small. 72" is what I would consider the smallest size for 3D. And like others here I am waiting for FP 3D technology to go into the the theater.

Chris_TC, the samsung demo I saw used the 2d-3d conversion of Night at the Museum. It was flat but IMO didn't take away from the movie. (I also saw the demo with MVA and the Panasonic demo). I am also waiting for Toshiba to come out with their TV's with the cell to see if maybe alot depends on the HP needed to do conversions.


----------



## mzpro5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18495504
> 
> 
> They are not using 3D much any more to have crap fly out of the screen into your face. That is 3D The Gimmick.
> 
> 
> Now they are using 3D to act as a balcony, so *you the viewer are immersed into the images* being presented before you. That is 3D The Story Telling Feature.



That is just a patent misstatement. How can you be "immersed" in the image? Immerse means to be in something that surrounds you. You may see depth but you are hardly immersed. Only a holigraphic situation such as a "holodeck" would immerse you in the image.


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18495504
> 
> 
> They are not using 3D much any more to have crap fly out of the screen into your face. That is 3D The Gimmick



Which *"they"* are you referring to? A number of "theys" are doing "3D The Gimmick". I've seen the 3D trailers for _Clash of the Titans_, _Piranha 3D_ and _Friday the 13th Part 2 in 3d_. All of them are in "3D The Gimmick". I would bet that many of the other 3D films slated for release are also that way. Hollywood never learns - if something is exploitable, they will exploit it.


Of the following future 3D movies, which do you think will be in "3D The Gimmick"? I would bet a very substantial percentage will be.


Shrek Forever After

Toy Story 3

Despicable Me

Cats & Dogs: the Revenge of Kitty Galore

Step Up 3D

Friday the 13th Part 2 in 3d

Piranha 3-D

Legend of the Guardians

Alpha and Omega

Jackass 3D

Saw VII

MegaMind

Tangled

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1

Yogi Bear

Tron Legacy

A Monster in Paris

Beauty and the Beast

The Cabin in the Woods

Priest

Resident Evil: Afterlife

Drive Angry

Sucker Punch!

Rio

Kung Fu Panda: the Kaboom of Doom

The Green Lantern

Cars 2

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

Smurfs 3D

Puss in Boots

Arthur Christmas

Happy Feet 2 in 3D

Bear and the Bow

Alvin and the Chipmunks 3D

The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn

Newt

Stretch Armstrong

Hotel Transylvania

The Croods

Madagascar 3

Untitled Spider-man Reboot

The Guardians


There was an interesting interview with Jeffery Katzenberg in Variety that says _*"3D is either A) The industry's biggest bigscreen innovation in decades and its biggest growth opportunity; B) In danger of fading within a year; or C) All of the above. According to Jeffrey Katzenberg, the answer is C."*_ He says *"We are asking the moviegoers to pay a 50 percent premium to come see these films. So I think (there will be a) backlash. It will be a whiplash. They will walk away from this so fast."* In my opinion, 3DTV is in the same position.



Here is a link to the article: Katzenberg: Biz at 3D crossroads


----------



## mzpro5

Here are several very interesting blogs/articles from John Sciacca:

http://johnsciacca.webs.com/apps/blo...ready-hate-you 

http://johnsciacca.webs.com/apps/blo...ple-and-drunks


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mzpro5* /forum/post/18497427
> 
> 
> That is just a patent misstatement. How can you be "immersed" in the image? Immerse means to be in something that surrounds you. You may see depth but you are hardly immersed. Only a holigraphic situation such as a "holodeck" would immerse you in the image.



Perhaps he meant it "figuratively"???


----------



## mzpro5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AJSJones* /forum/post/18498507
> 
> 
> Perhaps he meant it "figuratively"???


*"you the viewer are immersed into the images"*


Sorry either the images are in front of you or you are surrounded by the images which means they are all around you (i.e. immersed). Granted 3D can give the illusion of depth but even figuratively (and exactly what would "immersed" mean in a figurative sense?) I can't see how one could claim you "are immersed into the images"


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18498180
> 
> 
> Which *"they"* are you referring to? A number of "theys" are doing "3D The Gimmick". I've seen the 3D trailers for _Clash of the Titans_, _Piranha 3D_ and _Friday the 13th Part 2 in 3d_. All of them are in "3D The Gimmick". I would bet that many of the other 3D films slated for release are also that way. Hollywood never learns - if something is exploitable, they will exploit it.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a link to the article: Katzenberg: Biz at 3D crossroads



Thanks for the link. What he is (rightly so, IMO)railing against is the FAKE 3D that abounds and Titans was "the lowest of the low quality" 3D. We desperately need to have a moniker that ridicules such 2D-3D conversion movie that "claims" to be in 3D. I agree with you and him that is gimmick 3D at its lowest. Cardboard 3D? Flat 3D? Cut-out 3D? There's got to be a catchy one


On the other hand, I think 3D at the theater and 3D on home TVs may follow different paths - thinking of sports in 3D (and then there's 3D dildonics







)


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mzpro5* /forum/post/18498555
> 
> *"you the viewer are immersed into the images"*
> 
> 
> Sorry either the images are in front of you or you are surrounded by the images which means they are all around you (i.e. immersed). Granted 3D can give the illusion of depth but even figuratively (and exactly what would "immersed" mean in a figurative sense?) I can't see how one could claim you "are immersed into the images"



Have you ever been immersed in a good book or a good play at the theater?


----------



## mzpro5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AJSJones* /forum/post/18498575
> 
> 
> Have you ever been immersed in a good book or a good play at the theater?




Good point, I hadn't thought about it from that perspective.


I had assumed ( I know I'm an ass) that he was referring to the visual experience as he referred to being "immersed in the images".


I can accept being immersed in the story but with 3D, as in 2D, you are not "immersed in the images".


Guess I'm little tired of fanboys making 3D sound like something it is not, even in the best situation.


----------



## Ken H

When discussing visual media, the sense of immersiveness refers to how involved the participant feels; does the experience make you feel like 'you are there'?


Larger displays, depth perception, interactivity, tracked perspective, can all be used to this end.


----------



## mgkdragn

I've posted this in the past but it did not generate any discussion, oddly enough. Reading the last few posts, I'll try it again..


Philosphically, though.. The draw of 3-D is simply that it fundamentally alters the emotional experience of viewing. It no longer feels like a story about others, but becomes a story that invades your space, perhaps threateningly, perhaps provocatively, perhaps joyously. We enjoy 3-D movies because when we watch them we are no longer mere audience members.


Thus, the issue is, does that emotional experience translate into the home environment...??


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mgkdragn* /forum/post/18499111
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> Thus, the issue is, does that emotional experience translate into the home environment...??



I really can't see it happening much (or making much difference even) in the stereotypical family (mom, dad, 2 kids) on a couch watching a TV that's smallish and some distance away. More and more big TVs are being sold, however, and expectations are rising so it will grow and the stereotypical situation will change. On the other hand, in many home theaters (especially ones like members here might have) where the room is either dedicated or largely given over to the home theater experience and 100" screens are not rare, I can see it translating. Even in 2D watching HD sports on my RS-1 110" screen in HD (or a Blue Ray or any good HD programming) is already a visual treat and I anxiously await some 3D experiences.


For 3D to translate to a major mainstream emotional experience, we will have to await "most " people having big screens and sitting much closer than they used to. That'll take a while. They said that about HD too


----------



## mgkdragn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AJSJones* /forum/post/18499368
> 
> 
> I really can't see it happening much (or making much difference even) in the stereotypical family (mom, dad, 2 kids) on a couch watching a TV that's smallish and some distance away. More and more big TVs are being sold, however, and expectations are rising so it will grow and the stereotypical situation will change. On the other hand, in many home theaters (especially ones like members here might have) where the room is either dedicated or largely given over to the home theater experience and 100" screens are not rare, I can see it translating. Even in 2D watching HD sports on my RS-1 110" screen in HD (or a Blue Ray or any good HD programming) is already a visual treat and I anxiously await some 3D experiences.
> 
> 
> For 3D to translate to a major mainstream emotional experience, we will have to await "most " people having big screens and sitting much closer than they used to. That'll take a while. They said that about HD too



That really is a valid point. I tend to lean the same way. The only thing is, for most to have a large screen, projection would need to outsell direct view. I would vote for more R&D on OLED.. we could all have our own Holo Deck


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AJSJones* /forum/post/18498575
> 
> 
> Have you ever been immersed in a good book or a good play at the theater?



Exactly so...


"*Immersive/Immersion*" . . . _I suggest the following 'Thought Experiment':_

A room contains two identical large bezels [for some large, high resolution display]. One bezel encloses a large high resolution 3D tv display -- which shows the picture being taken by a 3D camera on the outside of the wall; the other bezel is an [artfully] disguised window. The same 'action scene' is visible through both bezels. In a controlled, double-blind test (you wear the same shutter glasses, etc.), you examine the picture on the display and 'the real world' visible through the window. If you are unable to reliably identify which is which, the 3D camera+display provide "100% immersion" (_if one looks like a flip-book stick figure, the immersion level is "0%"!_)


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/18499709
> 
> 
> ... If you are unable to reliably identify which is which, the 3D camera+display provide "100% immersion" (_if one looks like a flip-book stick figure, the immersion level is "0%"!_)



That is a measure of fidelity, not immersiveness.


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/18499709
> 
> 
> In a controlled, double-blind test (you wear the same shutter glasses, etc.), you examine the picture on the display and 'the real world' visible through the window. If you are unable to reliably identify which is which, the 3D camera+display provide "100% immersion" (_if one looks like a flip-book stick figure, the immersion level is "0%"!_)



That's not a valid test. The *big* difference is


> Quote:
> (you wear the same shutter glasses, etc.)



That throws a huge advantage to 3DTV. As the Samsung manual says: _"Do not use the 3D glasses for any other purpose than for viewing 3D television. Wearing the 3D glasses for any other purpose (as general spectacles, sunglasses, protective goggles, etc.) may be physically harmful to you and may weaken your eyesight."_


Another thought: How would you shut off the synchronizing signal for the glasses when you look out the window? The experiment cannot be _"double-blind"_ since we are testing sight; it would be like doing a _"double-deaf"_ test of speakers! And what, exactly, would be the point of doing a _'Thought Experiment'_? Are we supposed to *envision* what the two would look like?


The more I think about it, the sillier your experiment becomes.


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee* /forum/post/18499739
> 
> 
> That is a measure of fidelity, not immersiveness.



I guess I assumed that looking at the real world is a 100% immersive experience, by definition [_or maybe I need to look for 'Enhanced for Firefox' in small print as a certification of genuine immersion...?!_







]


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/18499828
> 
> 
> I guess I assumed that looking at the real world is a 100% immersive experience, by definition ...



Not at all; especially not, if you have to look through a window.


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/18499828
> 
> 
> I guess *I assumed that looking at the real world is a 100% immersive experience*, by definition [_or maybe I need to look for 'Enhanced for Firefox' in small print as a certification of genuine immersion...?!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ]



But that doesn't mean a current "3D" TV is. The real world is a lot different, and the real world is 360 degrees around you.


----------



## cctvtech

Here's a great analogy:


Do a double-blind test of speakers versus headphones (you have to leave the headphones on when listening to the speakers!)











Better yet, I'll do a "thought experiment" involving sight:


Wait a minute, let me close my eyes... OK!

My wife - Kate Beckinsale... My wife - Kate Beckinsale... My wife - Kate Beckinsale...


WOW!!! They look exactly alike. _Do I have to open my eyes?_


----------



## Kingcarcas

TC has not heard of the ipad if he thinks 3D is the most pointless.


----------



## mzpro5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/18499828
> 
> 
> I guess I assumed that looking at the real world is a 100% immersive experience, by definition [_or maybe I need to look for 'Enhanced for Firefox' in small print as a certification of genuine immersion...?!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ]



You're right if I am viewing the real world I can turn 360 degrees and experience it all around me.


If I view 3D TV I can see it if I look straight at it. Turn 180 degrees I do not see it - I am not immeresed in it as I am with the real world.


3D may be cool, may be a great entertainment experience for some (not for me) but it is not even close to the "real world".


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mzpro5* /forum/post/18501508
> 
> 
> You're right if I am viewing the real world I can turn 360 degrees and experience it all around me.
> 
> 
> If I view 3D TV I can see it if I look straight at it. Turn 180 degrees I do not see it - I am not immeresed in it as I am with the real world.
> 
> 
> 3D may be cool, may be a great entertainment experience for some (not for me) but it is not even close to the "real world".


_Immerse_d does seem like the wrong word







Engrossed often fits the bill better.


Nonetheless, in my equivalent of a batcave, when I first saw (2D) HD of a sports game (like NFL in 2000 comparing CBS1080i and ABC720p, by the way) it really was quite like sitting in a skybox and we were raving about the "window effect" when the PQ surpassed some magic threshold. Now with better blackout and 1080p upconversion from either source, the effect is even better. When 3D is added, as it inevitably will be, to my system, I'm expecting yet another increment in "realism" and there will be situations where it will feel like reality and others where it won't. Sitting is a darkened skybox at some sports event, my "real world" has nothing of interest other than the view out ad my head's not going to move much to take it all in, so if that seems "real" the mission has been accomplished. If they add close-ups and views from other cameras, it won't look as "real" but it will be more engrossing.


I'm sure there will be other situations where the 3D will feel intrusive until realism is achieved : think rapid cross-cutting action sequences where the eyes/brain need a little time to "get" the new 3D perspective. Even then, if realism is eventually achieved, it will still be a weird feeling....


/ramble


----------



## walford

For the last several years, ever since big screen HDTVs became available, the term imersed in reference to them has only meant that you if sit close enough to the TV that you see only the program and that you would have to turn your head to see other content in the room to the right or left of the TV screen itself.

And yes this is differnt from the classical definition of imersed however it is the one used by the HDTV industry.


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *walford* /forum/post/18502659
> 
> 
> And yes this is differnt from the classical definition of imersed...



Not necessarily. At least not if you have any experience in virtual reality or advanced visualization.


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AJSJones* /forum/post/18502533
> 
> _Immerse_d does seem like the wrong word....



Strongly disagree.


Immersed is the exact word to describe the sense of involvement with any number of media types.


It's not just how big or the images are, or how wide the sound field is. It's all about how the individuals feel when in the experience. 3D is just one more tool to enhance the sense of immersion.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

_This_ is more like 3D immersion (in that it is more surrounding you with) not a flat 2D screen that flips between just one left view and 1 right view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kGxCP0x0co 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEXhQfp4uPY 


Though proper and real 3D would be better where you could focus on 3D in real 3D space, like holograms, not the fake stereoscopic 3D.


----------



## curlyjive

I think we are just going to have to wait and see how his plays out in the general consumer market. No doubt, people are seeing more 3D movies and Avatar did have an effect on people's desire for 3D content. So now the question is will that translate into people's homes?


Seems to early to tell as the first generation of 3D sets being rushed out with little real 3D content. Are 3D blu ray players even out yet? When people get their new 50 3D set home and try actually sitting down to watch a 3D movie, what will they experience? IF they are watching a 50" set from across the room, I doubt it will be very impressive. If they are viewing a 3D Front projection system properly set up with all the right equipment in the chain and made for 3D content, well then the experience will likely be impressive.


The problem I have is that I have no desire for anything other than 3D front projection. That also means I may need to buy a new receiver for HDMI 1.4 support. Will my PS3 support 3D to its full capability? Who knows.


So this is an entirely new vocabulary for many consumers who have no idea what they may need to replicate what they saw in the theater and are justy getting used to HD formats. Many probably still lack the ability to fully take advantage of Blu Ray,, such as loss-less sound. All they know is what they WANT to see, but what will their experience really be? That is likely to be the deciding factor.


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs* /forum/post/18502845
> 
> _This_ is more like 3D immersion...



Yes, that's a CAVE, Cave Automatic Virtual Environment, and I was directly responsible for the first commercial installation in 1995.


The CAVE was invented by the Electronic Visualization Lab at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The company I worked for, Pyramid Systems in Southfield, MI, licensed the CAVE from UIC and deployed them on a commercial basis around the world.


A number of the original developers from UIC are now at UC San Diego and have recently developed an LCD flat panel version of the CAVE called NexCAVE, in conjunction with JVC.


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AJSJones* /forum/post/18498507
> 
> 
> Perhaps he meant it "figuratively"???





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AJSJones* /forum/post/18498575
> 
> *Have you ever been immersed in a good book or a good play at the theater?*





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AJSJones* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Immersed does seem like the wrong word....



In the sense of : if we are talking literally











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken H* /forum/post/18502817
> 
> 
> Strongly disagree.



If we're talking figuratively, I couldn't not disagree more stronglier. Wait, yes I could.


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AJSJones* /forum/post/18503211
> 
> 
> In the sense of : if we are talking literally
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we're talking figuratively, I couldn't not disagree more stronglier. Wait, yes I could.



You'll do better by trying Merriam-Webster.


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken H* /forum/post/18503642
> 
> 
> You'll do better by trying Merriam-Webster.



Or perhaps the OED











From MW

1 : to plunge into something that *surrounds or covers; especially : to plunge or dip into a fluid*

2 : engross, absorb

3 : to baptize by immersion



Our local Best Buy's Sunday paper is encouraging readers to get themselves immersed in the experience, using 46 and 52 inch PDPs. I'd have difficulty getting through an opening that small


----------



## Bill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *curlyjive* /forum/post/18502973
> 
> 
> I think we are just going to have to wait and see how his plays out in the general consumer market. No doubt, people are seeing more 3D movies and Avatar did have an effect on people's desire for 3D content. So now the question is will that translate into people's homes?
> 
> 
> Seems to early to tell as the first generation of 3D sets being rushed out with little real 3D content. Are 3D blu ray players even out yet? When people get their new 50 3D set home and try actually sitting down to watch a 3D movie, what will they experience? IF they are watching a 50" set from across the room, I doubt it will be very impressive. If they are viewing a 3D Front projection system properly set up with all the right equipment in the chain and made for 3D content, well then the experience will likely be impressive.
> 
> 
> The problem I have is that I have no desire for anything other than 3D front projection. That also means I may need to buy a new receiver for HDMI 1.4 support. Will my PS3 support 3D to its full capability? Who knows.
> 
> 
> So this is an entirely new vocabulary for many consumers who have no idea what they may need to replicate what they saw in the theater and are justy getting used to HD formats. Many probably still lack the ability to fully take advantage of Blu Ray,, such as loss-less sound. All they know is what they WANT to see, but what will their experience really be? That is likely to be the deciding factor.



For those who enjoy the 2D to 3D conversion it is like going from SD to HD- a no brainer. 3D sources are icing on the cake. I don't care if no one else buys a 3D set, I'm enjoying the heck out of mine.


----------



## SPatterson

I don't think I'd want to watch everything on my television at home in 3D - with or without glasses! However, the ability to watch certain television programs, such as the Superbowl would be amazing - I'd suffer having to wear awkward glasses to see that!!


I'm not a big Discovery Channel kind of guy, I lean more towards the sports and sci-fi genre, but wow ... watching a Jacques Cousteau type of underwater show could be fascinating.


In short, I don't mind wearing goofy or heavy glasses here and there for something I *really* want to see ...


----------



## Lee Stewart

*International HD news roundup (4/19/10)*


Read - New £1m high definition channel for Wales
*Read - Sir David Attenborough to present one of the UK's first 3D TV programmes*

Read - Freeview looks to take HD TV mass-market

Read - Sumo gets the HDTV treatment (Japan)
*Read - 3D in New Zealand*

Read - UAE cinema halls dig into IPL pie
*Read - Panasonic 3D TVs debut in Asia*
*Read - High Definition 3D TV sets expected to hit the market in 3rd quarter of 2010 (Singapore)*
*Read - After Avatar, Russian TV aims to move into 3D*

Read - Sky News readies HD marketing push

Read - Sky News Embarks on First Major Marketing Campaign as it Enters a High Definition Future

Read - Toshiba, CELL REGZA "55X1" on YouTube / Opera support (Japan)

Read - RRSAT to Distribute iConcerts High Definition Channel on Measat 3A Satellite

Read - Brava HDTV opera channel expands in France

Read - ESPN Launches ESPN360 in Chile
*Read - Net Insight Scores World Cup HD/3D TV Deals*

Read - Food Network HD to launch in Europe

Read - ABC iView coming to Sony TVs and Blu-ray players

http://hd.engadget.com/2010/04/19/in...-news-roundup/ 


I highlighted the 3D news to show that 3DTV isn't just happening in the USA or the UK.


----------



## Bill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mzpro5* /forum/post/18501508
> 
> 
> You're right if I am viewing the real world I can turn 360 degrees and experience it all around me.
> 
> 
> If I view 3D TV I can see it if I look straight at it. Turn 180 degrees I do not see it - I am not immeresed in it as I am with the real world.
> 
> 
> 3D may be cool, may be a great entertainment experience for some (not for me) but it is not even close to the "real world".



Maybe not, but it is getting closer.


----------



## akhaksho




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken H* /forum/post/18503024
> 
> 
> Yes, that's a CAVE, Cave Automatic Virtual Environment, and I was directly responsible for the first commercial installation in 1995.
> 
> 
> The CAVE was invented by the Electronic Visualization Lab at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The company I worked for, Pyramid Systems in Southfield, MI, licensed the CAVE from UIC and deployed them on a commercial basis around the world.
> 
> 
> A number of the original developers from UIC are now at UC San Diego and have recently developed an LCD flat panel version of the CAVE called NexCAVE, in conjunction with JVC.



Where was the first commercial installation? Did Pyramid install the one at Virginia Tech?


Did you end up working for Fakespace or Mechdyne?


The NexCAVE is nowhere near as immersive as a conventional CAVE. The Xpol based stereo doesn't work very well off-axis.


----------



## erick granato

I look at it this way: every time a new technology comes out, I can't wait to get it. Home video player(beta/vhs), big screen crt,laser disc, dvd, plasma, HDDVD and Blu ray had/have them all and couldn't wait until I could afford to buy them and bring home (kid on Christmas morning). But 3d is different, the hairs on the back of my neck are not standing up. I have seen the demo's at Best Buy and Futureshop of the Monsters vs. Aliens and so far, although kind of cool, I don't have the compulsion to buy (as I can afford at this time) one. Is it a fad, maybe. If a tech geek like myself is lukewarm, then maybe this is just a gimmick.


----------



## Steve P.

Hollywood is loving the gimmick, since it brought in 1/3 of their revenue in 2009.


----------



## JOHNnDENVER




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erick granato* /forum/post/18513256
> 
> 
> I look at it this way: every time a new technology comes out, I can't wait to get it. Home video player(beta/vhs), big screen crt,laser disc, dvd, plasma, HDDVD and Blu ray had/have them all and couldn't wait until I could afford to buy them and bring home (kid on Christmas morning). But 3d is different, the hairs on the back of my neck are not standing up. I have seen the demo's at Best Buy and Futureshop of the Monsters vs. Aliens and so far, although kind of cool, I don't have the compulsion to buy (as I can afford at this time) one. Is it a fad, maybe. If a tech geek like myself is lukewarm, then maybe this is just a gimmick.



I think your just getting older...


----------



## erick granato




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JOHNnDENVER* /forum/post/18513462
> 
> 
> I think your just getting older...



And wiser possibly?


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve P.* /forum/post/18513342
> 
> 
> Hollywood is loving the gimmick, since it brought in 1/3 of their revenue in 2009.



That would be 2010. In 2009, 3D accounted for 10%:

http://www.mpaa.org/MPAATheatricalMa...istics2009.pdf


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN

Lee, Since you have a lot of information about 3D Tech/TVs.. Which TV do you suggest will work best lets say for 3D blu rays and for ESPN 3D coming up?







im just wondering if you would favor the Panasonic Plasma (TC-P50VT20) one in bestbuy or Samsung C7000/C8000 ones. I heard some claim including you that ghosting exist in Samsung 3D sets, but it's not clear what is causing it, is it really the TV? or maybe the Samsung 3D blu ray player?? maybe even the demo/movie itself.... Also some claim that they see ghosting in Panasonic Plasma, honestly if ghosting exist in both sets, i would favor Samsung TV for it's for 2D viewing, i have never been a fan for plasma but if it has a better 3D, i might consider it getting it! What do you have to say about that?


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve P.* /forum/post/18513342
> 
> 
> Hollywood is loving the gimmick, since it brought in 1/3 of their revenue in 2009.



It gave a reason for people to get out and go to the cinemas. Now by bringing this to the homes why bother going to the cinemas again? There going in circles. They should of left 3D for the cinemas, the majority at home can't duplicate that experince.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WorldCup2010ESPN* /forum/post/18514509
> 
> 
> Lee, Since you have a lot of information about 3D Tech/TVs.. Which TV do you suggest will work best lets say for 3D blu rays and for ESPN 3D coming up?
> 
> 
> im just wondering if you would favor the Panasonic Plasma (TC-P50VT20) one in bestbuy or Samsung C7000/C8000 ones. I heard some claim including you that ghosting exist in Samsung 3D sets, but it's not clear what is causing it, is it really the TV? or maybe the Samsung 3D blu ray player?? maybe even the demo/movie itself.... Also some claim that they see ghosting in Panasonic Plasma, honestly if ghosting exist in both sets, i would favor Samsung TV for it's for 2D viewing, i have never been a fan for plasma but if it has a better 3D, i might consider it getting it! What do you have to say about that?



I would pick the Panasonic. IMO, they started with a clean sheet of paper, looked at the issues 3D brings, and designed a 3DTV to answer them. They are giving the consumer the best shot at seeing 3D in the best presentation.


All Samsung did was add the 3D circuitry to their TV's.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18514623
> 
> 
> It gave a reason for people to get out and go to the cinemas. Now by bringing this to the homes why bother going to the cinemas again? There going in circles. They should of left 3D for the cinemas, the majority at home can't duplicate that experince.



People will realize that professioally presented 3D is always going to look better than the consumer version. What they are offering is the ability to see the movie in your home as many times as you want in the process it was produced in.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18514734
> 
> 
> I would pick the Panasonic. IMO, they started with a clean sheet of paper, looked at the issues 3D brings, and designed a 3DTV to answer them. They are giving the consumer the best shot at seeing 3D in the best presentation.
> 
> 
> All Samsung did was add the 3D circuitry to their TV's.







heh, i see. You do make a good point about that, but im still unsure if crosswalk/ghosting are entirely TV problem. It could simply be a connection problem between TV and Blu ray player. Have you seen the same movie demo that was in Samsung Tv in Panasonic TV perhaps?


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WorldCup2010ESPN* /forum/post/18514927
> 
> 
> heh, i see. You do make a good point about that, but im still unsure if crosswalk/ghosting are entirely TV problem. It could simply be a connection problem between TV and Blu ray player. Have you seen the same movie demo that was in Samsung Tv in Panasonic TV perhaps?



Ghosting may just be inherent in 3D consumer presentations. It can be caused by so many things and seeing a demo at a retail store can hardly be the be all to end all of presentations.


It's like Color Banding. An artifact created by the low performance (4:2:0) of consumer HD signals.


----------



## JamesN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18514734
> 
> 
> I would pick the Panasonic. IMO, they started with a clean sheet of paper, looked at the issues 3D brings, and designed a 3DTV to answer them. They are giving the consumer the best shot at seeing 3D in the best presentation.
> 
> 
> All Samsung did was add the 3D circuitry to their TV's.



I'm not disagreeing with what seems to be a general consensus that Panasonic's 3D plasmas trump Samsung's. However, I do suspect that Samsung made _some_ effort to improve their plasma panel technology in the 2010 models. I have an '09 Samsung "3D ready" plasma, and ghosting on it is horrific to the point of being nearly unwatchable without major tweaking. So clearly Samsung made some attempts to improve upon earlier models. But yes, it would appear that Panasonic's efforts in the same area have yielded better results.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18515348
> 
> 
> Ghosting may just be inherent in 3D consumer presentations. It can be caused by so many things and seeing a demo at a retail store can hardly be the be all to end all of presentations.
> 
> 
> It's like Color Banding. An artifact created by the low performance (4:2:0) of consumer HD signals.






I see. But my point is though if people see ghosting in both Samsung and Panasonic 3D sets, doesn't that make them provide the same performance in 3D? im trying to understand why Panasonic is better in 3D when it has been confirmed ghosting exist with them, is it perhaps the ghosting is not really noticeable in Panasonic?





hehe, im still not sure which 3D TV to get that can give good 3D performance and its 2D must be top notch. I still plain to wait some more for both prices to drop and make a good decision to buy the right TV


----------



## Steve P.

I've rather extensively toyed with a Samsung 8000 model Plasma, and ghosting is an issue mostly with darker scenes in the MVA disc. It's not in every scene, but you can't miss it when it's there. Some scenes aren't a huge issue, while others it's pretty bad. These same issues are noticeable on the Samsung LED 7000 model, in both 46" and 55" size.


I've also seen the Panasonic Plasma, and I only saw a very minor, tiny bit of ghosting. Almost imperceptable. However, I only saw a few segments of the demo disc and not the whole thing.


What's hard is I haven't seen the same content on both sets. Based on what I have seen, I'd say the Panasonic was the clear winner in the ghostbusting department.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18514623
> 
> 
> It gave a reason for people to get out and go to the cinemas. Now by bringing this to the homes why bother going to the cinemas again? There going in circles.



+1


Art


----------



## mgkdragn

I posted this at my discussion thread on translating the 3-D viewing experience to the home...


For the viewer to enjoy the best immersive 3D TV viewing experience in the home, one has to view the screen from an angle that matches the camera shooting angle used during filming. Since current 3D content is shot from a fixed head-on perspective, the line from your seating position to the screen should be such as to represent a perpendicular to the screen surface, i.e. your 3D TV viewing should be along the TV axis, for a zero degrees viewing angle. This represents the sweet spot for the most realistic immersive 3D viewing experience.


Move away from this sweet spot and the resultant 3D image will soon start to appear somewhat abnormal as the brain tries to make sense of images seen by the left and right eyes - shot from head-on but that are being viewed at an angle. The brain would expect to see a side view not a head-on view when viewing images from the side.


This implies that if you really want to make the best out of the latest 3D TV technology and get the best out of your new and expensive 3D HDTV, you should not only stay at a closer 3D TV viewing distance than is typical for 2D TV viewing, but also limit your TV viewing angle to as close as possible to zero degrees along the TV axis.


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mgkdragn* /forum/post/18528817
> 
> 
> For the viewer to enjoy the best immersive 3D TV viewing experience in the home, one has to view the screen from an angle that matches the camera shooting angle used during filming. Since current 3D content is shot from a fixed head-on perspective, the line from your seating position to the screen should be such as to represent a perpendicular to the screen surface, i.e. your 3D TV viewing should be along the TV axis, for a zero degrees viewing angle. This represents the sweet spot for the most realistic immersive 3D viewing experience.
> 
> 
> Move away from this sweet spot and the resultant 3D image will soon start to appear somewhat abnormal as the brain tries to make sense of images seen by the left and right eyes - shot from head-on but that are being viewed at an angle. The brain would expect to see a side view not a head-on view when viewing images from the side.
> 
> 
> This implies that if you really want to make the best out of the latest 3D TV technology and get the best out of your new and expensive 3D HDTV, you should not only stay at a closer 3D TV viewing distance than is typical for 2D TV viewing, but also limit your TV viewing angle to as close as possible to zero degrees along the TV axis.



Kind of kills the "TV over the fireplace" layout, doesn't it?


----------



## mgkdragn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18529110
> 
> 
> Kind of kills the "TV over the fireplace" layout, doesn't it?



I never understood or liked that layout...


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18529110
> 
> 
> Kind of kills the "TV over the fireplace" layout, doesn't it?


_Not if you make the fireplace sufficiently small, the display sufficiently large, or some combination of the two..._


----------



## mgkdragn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/18529230
> 
> _Not if you make the fireplace sufficiently small, the display sufficiently large, or some combination of the two..._



It would probably require a pretty small fireplace in order to maintain that "optimal viewing cone"...


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mgkdragn* /forum/post/18529303
> 
> 
> It would probably require a pretty small fireplace in order to maintain that "optimal viewing cone"...



Actually, some extra vertical displacement of the display is 'relatively' less important, because the display can be tilted 'forward' as necessary to restore the optimal _pitch_ angle (it's just that a large tilt makes the room look strange!) Because our stereoscopic vision is effected using two eyes arrayed horizontally, it's more important to preserve the angular sweet spot in the _yaw_ plane...?!


----------



## mgkdragn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/18529372
> 
> 
> Actually, some extra vertical displacement of the display is 'relatively' less important, because the display can be tilted 'forward' as necessary to restore the optimal _pitch_ angle (it's just that a large tilt makes the room look strange!) Because our stereoscopic vision is effected using two eyes arrayed horizontally, it's more important to preserve the angular sweet spot in the _yaw_ plane...?!



Makes sense... I stand corrected..


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/18529372
> 
> 
> it's more important to preserve the angular sweet spot in the _yaw_ plane...?!



Yeah, 3D bores me to...


Oh - you said *yaw*, not *yawn*!







"Never mind!"


----------



## NetGod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tony6225* /forum/post/18438265
> 
> 
> I agree for the most part. 3D is going to be a gimmick until it can be viewed without glasses.



Find my thread. I discussed this over a year ago. VERY old news.


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NetGod* /forum/post/18557355
> 
> 
> Find my thread. I discussed this over a year ago. VERY old news.



Comments prior to CES 2010 about the viability of consumer 3D are no longer valid in the current context.


----------



## KBI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erick granato* /forum/post/18513256
> 
> 
> I look at it this way: every time a new technology comes out, I can't wait to get it. Home video player(beta/vhs), big screen crt,laser disc, dvd, plasma, HDDVD and Blu ray had/have them all and couldn't wait until I could afford to buy them and bring home (kid on Christmas morning). But 3d is different, the hairs on the back of my neck are not standing up. I have seen the demo's at Best Buy and Futureshop of the Monsters vs. Aliens and so far, although kind of cool, I don't have the compulsion to buy (as I can afford at this time) one. Is it a fad, maybe. If a tech geek like myself is lukewarm, then maybe this is just a gimmick.



I really feel they are pushing this on the consumer way too hard.. I keep up to date with A/V gear & am knowledgeable enough to make a sound purchase & recommendation.. But this whole 3D thing has me spinning in circles. It's like the flood gates have been open & info shooting from everywhere. I won't go as far as to call 3D a fad.. Companies won't let it.







I'm sure there were some who thought HDTV was just a fad, & pundits giving us 10 reasons why it would fail.. I was a early adapter to HDTV.. Bought my first set in 04.. I won't be getting into 3D anytime soon.. I seen the Panasonic demo.. Yes, impressive.. But I'd rather have studio's focus on making blu ray movies with IMAX cameras, instead of pushing yet another technology down our throat..


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KBI* /forum/post/18566042
> 
> 
> I really feel they are pushing this on the consumer way too hard.. I keep up to date with A/V gear & am knowledgeable enough to make a sound purchase & recommendation.. But this whole 3D thing has me spinning in circles. It's like the flood gates have been open & info shooting from everywhere. I won't go as far as to call 3D a fad.. Companies won't let it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure there were some who thought HDTV was just a fad, & pundits giving us 10 reasons why it would fail.. I was a early adapter to HDTV.. Bought my first set in 04.. I won't be getting into 3D anytime soon.. I seen the Panasonic demo.. Yes, impressive.. But I'd rather have studio's focus on making blu ray movies with IMAX cameras, instead of pushing yet another technology down our throat..



The floodgates haven't opened yet. There has been a very "soft" launch of 3D. Even today, when I went to Best Buy I had to ask specifically to see the 3D---they weren't in any way directing traffic to the new 3D TVs. However, the floodgates will open in about 6 weeks when DirecTV launches their 3D channels. You will see a lot more publicity and more manufacturers will have sets in the stores. I can't believe you feel that they are "pushing this on the consumer way too hard." Some of us really want to have the ability to watch great 3D at home. Evidently you think that we are some kind of suckers. If you don't want 3D, don't buy it, but don't think for a moment that I am falling for marketing hype when I want 3D. I've wanted good 3D for a long time at home, and all we've had in the past is the crappy anaglyph red/blue glasses. This new 3D is a huge step up.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KBI* /forum/post/18566042
> 
> 
> I really feel they are pushing this on the consumer way too hard.. I keep up to date with A/V gear & am knowledgeable enough to make a sound purchase & recommendation.. But this whole 3D thing has me spinning in circles. It's like the flood gates have been open & info shooting from everywhere. I won't go as far as to call 3D a fad.. Companies won't let it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure there were some who thought HDTV was just a fad, & pundits giving us 10 reasons why it would fail.. I was a early adapter to HDTV.. Bought my first set in 04.. I won't be getting into 3D anytime soon.. I seen the Panasonic demo.. Yes, impressive.. But I'd rather have studio's focus on making blu ray movies with IMAX cameras, instead of pushing yet another technology down our throat..



1. Early adoptor of HDTV in 2004? It came out in Q4 of 1998


2. Now why would you want a 12,000x8,000 1.44 AR film format for a 1920x1080 1.78 AR media? That's like shooting a fly with an Elephant Gun.


----------



## hphase




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mgkdragn* /forum/post/18528817
> 
> 
> This implies that if you really want to make the best out of the latest 3D TV technology and get the best out of your new and expensive 3D HDTV, you should not only stay at a closer 3D TV viewing distance than is typical for 2D TV viewing, but also limit your TV viewing angle to as close as possible to zero degrees along the TV axis.



I think you are making too much of the "head-on" approach. I don't think the veiwing angle needs to be restricted that much.


If you've ever been able to walk around a theatre with a frozen 3D image on the screen, you would notice that the perspective changes, even though the image doesn't. If something is coming out of the screen, it pokes straight out into the audience. You seem to see it from the side as you walk around it. You obviously don't see a holographic image (with different versions of each side of the "object") but the brain doesn't seem to mind.


----------



## Augerhandle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tony6225* /forum/post/18438265
> 
> 
> I agree for the most part. 3D is going to be a gimmick until it can be viewed without glasses.




I feel the same way about SCUBA. I'm not diving until they lose those goggles! ...and the tanks, for that matter. They don't even use real air...it's _compressed_. It's just a gimmick to make you feel..._immersed_ in the undersea world.










And then there's COLOR. Another fad, but at least I don't have to watch TV in color. I just turn down the color control and watch in black and white, the way the world was meant to be seen.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Augerhandle* /forum/post/18571495
> 
> 
> I feel the same way about SCUBA. I'm not diving until they lose those goggles! ...and the tanks, for that matter. They don't even use real air...it's _compressed_. It's just a gimmick to make you feel..._immersed_ in the undersea world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then there's COLOR. Another fad, but at least I don't have to watch TV in color. I just turn down the color control and watch in black and white, the way the world was meant to be seen.



That is silliest analogy of ive ever heard. When watching movies in colour do you put glasses on, let me think NO!


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18514734
> 
> 
> I would pick the Panasonic. IMO, they started with a clean sheet of paper, looked at the issues 3D brings, and designed a 3DTV to answer them. They are giving the consumer the best shot at seeing 3D in the best presentation.
> 
> *All Samsung did was add the 3D circuitry to their TV's*.



Not true


Samsung did all they could with the current VA mode. It's not easy getting LCDs to function correctly due to too many variable factors (e.g. temp, pixel lag, address lag etc.). The sad truth is, VA served them well for the past 7 years, but its now showing its dark side.


Thus far, Samsung developed dual-scanning and high-speed charging of the cell capacitor and implemented BFI and backlight scanning to combat cross-talk. Next year, they may vastly improve the VA panel to eliminate cross-talk altogether (but don't see it happening tbh). I think their chances lies with BP mode and OLED.


Also, the level of brightness and the 3D View Point have direct effect on ghosting. Hopefully Vincent or I will get the chance to review one with all of recent firmware updates.




PS: Panasonic VT * doesn't seem perfect either .*



PPS: 777th post ^-^


----------



## Augerhandle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18571564
> 
> 
> That is silliest analogy of ive ever heard.(snip)



Thanks. It was meant to be silly. Hence the winking smileys.(







)




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18571564
> 
> 
> (snip)...and diving well go out diving without goggles especially in the ocean.



Exactly. Try watching 3D today without glasses.


The comments here are as silly to me as the SCUBA comment was to you. One may not like wearing the SCUBA goggles, but they are necessary if one wants to dive, especially in the ocean. One may not like wearing 3D glasses, but they are necessary if one wants to watch 3D today.


I didn't like the anaglyph glasses. But I will use the shutter glasses. And I will use whatever comes next that doesn't need glasses. But I won't sit on the shore complaining until then. I am ready to dive in now.


----------



## Augerhandle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18571564
> 
> 
> That is silliest analogy of ive ever heard. When watching movies in colour do you put glasses on, let me think NO!



I see you edited out the SCUBA response.


The color comment was in response to 3D being a "fad". "They" said the same about color. And sound. And stereo. The point being, if you think it's a fad, stick with what you know. The choice is still there.


----------



## chaz01




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Augerhandle* /forum/post/18571495
> 
> 
> I feel the same way about SCUBA. I'm not diving until they lose those goggles! ...and the tanks, for that matter. They don't even use real air...it's _compressed_. It's just a gimmick to make you feel..._immersed_ in the undersea world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then there's COLOR. Another fad, but at least I don't have to watch TV in color. I just turn down the color control and watch in black and white, the way the world was meant to be seen.



Are you saying that watching 2d TV is like watching under water?


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Augerhandle* /forum/post/18571761
> 
> 
> I see you edited out the SCUBA response.
> 
> 
> The color comment was in response to 3D being a "fad". "They" said the same about color. And sound. And stereo. The point being, if you think it's a fad, stick with what you know. The choice is still there.



I didn't know they said about colour being a fad. I remember it took my parents awhile to change to colour tv's as my family were not finacially ready. But I have to admit i can't see how people think changing to colour was being a fad it wasn't asking you to do anything but change your tv without having to wear glasses to see colour.


I will have no problem wearing real D glasses watching a movie every now and then in the home cinema(projector) but for normal tv? No way!


----------



## Dreamaholic

I understand there will be negative comments. Some people just don't like 3D. But comments that the manufacturers are "pushing it down our throats" are uncalled for. Yes, they are all scrambling to make TVs with 3D capability. But even if you buy one, it's not like you are forced to watch 3D only. They do 2D just fine. And manufacturers are still making 2D sets. You can't even buy a 3D movie for these displays yet.


Personally I'm enjoying mine for the 2d to 3D conversions. I'm impressed with the attempt to create a subtle depth of field rather than having something coming right at my face, which is distracting. I really love it for gaming, especially racing like Forza 3 or Burnout Paradise.


I only wear the glasses once a day for about 2-3 hours, either for a movie, TV show, or gaming - anymore than that is fatiguing. I too thought it would be a gimmick and I've never early-adopted anything...I usually meticulously read as many reviews as I can find before I buy something. But from the moment I walked into Best Buy and tried it out, in spite of the ghosting issue, to my great surprise I'm really enjoying it.


----------



## KUJayhawk20659




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dreamaholic* /forum/post/18572438
> 
> 
> I understand there will be negative comments. Some people just don't like 3D. But comments that the manufacturers are "pushing it down our throats" are uncalled for. Yes, they are all scrambling to make TVs with 3D capability. But even if you buy one, it's not like you are forced to watch 3D only. They do 2D just fine. And manufacturers are still making 2D sets. You can't even buy a 3D movie for these displays yet.
> 
> 
> Personally I'm enjoying mine for the 2d to 3D conversions. I'm impressed with the attempt to create a subtle depth of field rather than having something coming right at my face, which is distracting. I really love it for gaming, especially racing like Forza 3 or Burnout Paradise.
> 
> 
> I only wear the glasses once a day for about 2-3 hours, either for a movie, TV show, or gaming - anymore than that is fatiguing. I too thought it would be a gimmick and I've never early-adopted anything...I usually meticulously read as many reviews as I can find before I buy something. But from the moment I walked into Best Buy and tried it out, in spite of the ghosting issue, to my great surprise I'm really enjoying it.



Agree, I for one think a tv is coming out that will surpass my pioneer. So I plan on buying the 65vt25 right away. 3D is just a bonus. The premium is not that much as this years model is not that much more then last years, plus I can just sell my 3d glasses and recoup 100 if I wanted.

People just need and find reasons to complain and simply need to learn to just enjoy what we have.

The samsungs were rated as some of the best 2d we have ever seen in a led/lcd, but thats not enough.

The pannys will have kuro blacks, but again thats not enough.

Maybe you complainers should just read books and leave tvs to people who enjoy them.


----------



## Augerhandle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chaz01* /forum/post/18571895
> 
> 
> Are you saying that watching 2d TV is like watching under water?



No. And I'm not going to explain the joke again.


"Two guys walk into a BestBuy...the third guy got the joke"


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18572130
> 
> 
> 
> I will have no problem wearing real D glasses watching a movie every now and then in the home cinema(projector) but for normal tv? No way!



The choice is indeed yours ... and mine. If it's in 3D and I want to watch it in 3D , I'll wear the glasses (I'd prefer Dolby system but that's not *real*ly relevant).

*Rest of the time, no glasses, 2D/3D switch in 2D mode.*


Simple, no whining.


Can't wait for sports in 3D (as long as they figure out how to present it well) - in 2D HD on a 110" screen it's already terrific - go Sharkies, Come on Fulham


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AJSJones* /forum/post/18573220
> 
> 
> The choice is indeed yours . . . and mine. If it's in 3D and I want to watch it in 3D , I'll wear the glasses . . . *Rest of the time, no glasses, 2D/3D switch in 2D mode.*



Where there is only a single feed/recording for both 2D and 3D, I'm hoping that both movies and tv will do 'direction of photography' in a manner that is 'good' for both 3D and 2D (i.e., "one eyed"!) viewing . . . but I'm skeptical about how much of the time they will get it right! _Viz:_ I suspect that coverage of a shot at goal in soccer might look good in 3D from directly behind the goal, but that an oblique coverage of the goal might be better in 2D...?! [_And I don't even want to think about 'adult video'!_







] If movies are filmed in 3D, will there be a minimally different edit playing at 2D movie theaters? If so, one possible option would be for 3D-BDs to carry the two different (video) cuts, i.e., each 'optimized' only for either 2D or 3D playback.


----------



## Vipfreak

I had gone to see Avatar in "2D" and "wannabe 3D (not imax)" (thankfully I didn't pay although it still pains me that money went Camron's way). I felt so ripped off by "3D" because it wasn't "3D" it was just sharper than 2D which is suppose to be HD. WTF?!


I had then seen "3D" at Fry's via the "3D" monitors, again waste of time and on top of that I ain't going to be walking around with two sets of glasses on my face.


I'm just starting up a Blu Ray collection and you're telling me that they are now obsolete and I need to get "3D" Blu Rays now? **** that ****...


Lastly, they push "3D" as the next big thing but I'm JUST getting into HDTVs. Again, WTF.


----------



## Rammitinski

You could always sell it all and start over.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vipfreak* /forum/post/18573446
> 
> 
> I had gone to see Avatar in "2D" and "wannabe 3D (not imax)" (thankfully I didn't pay although it still pains me that money went Camron's way). I felt so ripped off by "3D" because it wasn't "3D" it was just sharper than 2D which is suppose to be HD. WTF?!
> 
> 
> I had then seen "3D" at Fry's via the "3D" monitors, again waste of time and on top of that I ain't going to be walking around with two sets of glasses on my face.
> 
> 
> I'm just starting up a Blu Ray collection and you're telling me that they are now obsolete and I need to get "3D" Blu Rays now? **** that ****...
> 
> 
> Lastly, they push "3D" as the next big thing but I'm JUST getting into HDTVs. Again, WTF.



"Progress waits for no man."


----------



## Vipfreak

Progress? My yellow ass... We've had the same **** like what 50 years. ago. When did Captain EO come out...? (Yes, I realize that's not when it actually came out)


----------



## Rammitinski

If I were you, I'd have whomever held the gun to your head and forced you to buy into this stuff arrested.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vipfreak* /forum/post/18573821
> 
> 
> Progress? My yellow ass... We've had the same **** like what 50 years. ago. When did Captain EO come out...? (Yes, I realize that's not when it actually came out)



They haven't shot a 3D movie on film (with the exception of IMAX 3D movies) in YEARS.


The lastest rebirth of 3D started in 2005. ALL the movies have been shot with digital cameras and shown in Digital 3d theaters except again the conversion to IMAX 3D.


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vipfreak* /forum/post/18573446
> 
> 
> I had gone to see Avatar in "2D" and "wannabe 3D (not imax)" I felt so ripped off by "3D" because it wasn't "3D" it was just sharper than 2D which is suppose to be HD.



Nothing much changed when you closed one eye, huh? Sorry you can't seem to see the 3D effect that so many other people enjoy.


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/18573421
> 
> 
> Where there is only a single feed/recording for both 2D and 3D, I'm hoping that both movies and tv will do 'direction of photography' in a manner that is 'good' for both 3D and 2D (i.e., "one eyed"!) viewing . . . but I'm skeptical about how much of the time they will get it right! _Viz:_ I suspect that coverage of a shot at goal in soccer might look good in 3D from directly behind the goal, but that an oblique coverage of the goal might be better in 2D...?! [_And I don't even want to think about 'adult video'!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ] If movies are filmed in 3D, will there be a minimally different edit playing at 2D movie theaters? If so, one possible option would be for 3D-BDs to carry the two different (video) cuts, i.e., each 'optimized' only for either 2D or 3D playback.



Very good point. There's that side of the learning curve too. I think it was in The Economist recently where I read the soccer 3D production team felt they needed fewer TV cameras and moved them compared to the 2D set-up they've used for so long. I don't have 3D yet to know whether that's a loss for 2D viewers but let's hope they're compatible.


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *akhaksho* /forum/post/18512053
> 
> 
> Where was the first commercial installation?



The EDS Virtual Reality Center, Detroit, MI



> Quote:
> Did Pyramid install the one at Virginia Tech?



Yes.



> Quote:
> Did you end up working for Fakespace or Mechdyne?



Fakespace and after we acquired Pyramid Systems, Fakespace Systems.


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vipfreak* /forum/post/18573446
> 
> 
> I had gone to see Avatar in "2D" and "wannabe 3D (not imax)" (thankfully I didn't pay although it still pains me that money went Camron's way). I felt so ripped off by "3D" because it wasn't "3D" it was just sharper than 2D which is suppose to be HD. WTF?!
> 
> 
> I had then seen "3D" at Fry's via the "3D" monitors, again waste of time and on top of that I ain't going to be walking around with two sets of glasses on my face.
> 
> 
> I'm just starting up a Blu Ray collection and you're telling me that they are now obsolete and I need to get "3D" Blu Rays now? **** that ****...



I'll say it again. The real pushback is people being intimidated, and pissed off, by the fact all the money they've sunk into HDTV isn't going to serve them like when their parents bought a color TV; to get into the 3D game they will have to spend more money than anyone would have planned to a year, or two or three, ago. Result: A huge case of sour grapes. 'I just bought an HDTV, I'm not going to buy another', 'it's a scam',.....and on and on and on.


Well, that's fine. For them. No one is being forced to buy a new TV. They can continue to watch HDTV just like they planned on.



> Quote:
> Lastly, they push "3D" as the next big thing but I'm JUST getting into HDTVs. Again, WTF.



10+ years after it was introduced? Why the big rush?


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken H* /forum/post/18574442
> 
> 
> I'll say it again. The real pushback is people being intimidated, and pissed off, by the fact all the money they've sunk into HDTV isn't going to serve them like when their parents bought a color TV; to get into the 3D game they will have to spend more money than anyone would have planned to a year, or two or three, ago. Result: A huge case of sour grapes. 'I just bought an HDTV, I'm not going to buy another', 'it's a scam',.....and on and on and on.
> 
> 
> Well, that's fine. For them. No one is being forced to buy a new TV. They can continue to watch HDTV just like they planned on.
> 
> 
> 10+ years after it was introduced? Why the big rush?



They can continue to watch HDTV, but then they'll feel inferior.


----------



## Rammitinski

Yes - they won't be able to live with themselves, with all that incessant ridiculing from their family, friends, neighbors and co-workers.


----------



## cctvtech










_*I can't afford a 3D TV.*_


----------



## [Irishman]




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *serialmike* /forum/post/18438063
> 
> 
> yes and no. your right current 3d is crude. It is supposed to be no glasses in the "future"



Yeah, and I'm supposed to have a flying car by now, too.


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *[Irishman]* /forum/post/18576820
> 
> 
> Yeah, and I'm supposed to have a flying car by now, too.


_Sorry, bad analogy:_ The lack of widespread flying car use is more a reflection of 'unanticipated' prices rises for energy plus [at the time] poor conceptualization of the 'added value' benefits to be obtained through intra city flight . . . as opposed to (your implication of) _technology shortfall_!


[_However, I am willing to concede that while a 'civilianized' Hummer from GM might be described as 'thoughtless/tasteless', the family-operated 'civilian equivalent' of a Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey produces entirely different feelings...!?_







]


On the other hand, 3D technology is still better described as 'evolving technology' [_rather than as a mature technology that has 'failed'_].


----------



## Chris_TC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vipfreak* /forum/post/18573446
> 
> 
> I had gone to see Avatar in "2D" and "wannabe 3D (not imax)" (thankfully I didn't pay although it still pains me that money went Camron's way). I felt so ripped off by "3D" because it wasn't "3D" it was just sharper than 2D which is suppose to be HD. WTF?!



I hope I never cross your path when you're driving a car because apparently you have no depth perception.


----------



## mgkdragn

 http://www.insideredbox.com/movie-cr...1dGSR.aLYmK97L


----------



## [Irishman]




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/18577031
> 
> _Sorry, bad analogy:_ The lack of widespread flying car use is more a reflection of 'unanticipated' prices rises for energy plus [at the time] poor conceptualization of the 'added value' benefits to be obtained through intra city flight . . . as opposed to (your implication of) _technology shortfall_!
> 
> 
> [_However, I am willing to concede that while a 'civilianized' Hummer from GM might be described as 'thoughtless/tasteless', the family-operated 'civilian equivalent' of a Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey produces entirely different feelings...!?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> 
> On the other hand, 3D technology is still better described as 'evolving technology' [_rather than as a mature technology that has 'failed'_].



My point is that predictions for technologies are very flaky. Some succeed, some don't. And it isn't easy to make those predictions come true, come flying car or 3DTV.


----------



## Bill




> Quote:
> Can't wait for sports in 3D (as long as they figure out how to present it well) - in 2D HD on a 110" screen it's already terrific - go Sharkies, Come on Fulham



I watch hockey 2D to 3D, It seems like I'm in the stands. You should try it.


----------



## Fishtank

I don't know why people are angry.


3D projector for movies and games, tv in the living room. Maybe 3DTV in the living room, might be a lot of fun. We don't know how far the corporations will go to deliver proper content. You know the kids/cartoons will always be popular with the young ones, they will probably be first.


All I know is I look forward to:


3D projector + 3D video game + accurate motion control. It's going to be fun, and it's something nobody in this forum has done before.


Even for all you old people who keep moaning about 50 years ago like your lame red and blue glasses and micheal jackson video's were the same thing.... or whatever your goin on about.


People might actually make decent content this time around, in different formats that suit the technology. That is the biggest difference imo.


----------



## Vipfreak

Some of your guys replys are funny. You totally missed the point... Completely.


Anyway, I have no problem with the above even though I wouldn't waist my time, but when someone especially if it's marketing comes out and says... here is something new and revolutionary when it clearly isn't then I have a problem with it. Are iPods "new"? Are Apps "new"? Is 3D "new"? No... they're all just labeled slightly differently to make the public go stupid and go gaga with whatever **** they come out with. Not to mention them being to old to remember or to young to even look back to the past.


----------



## cneely8




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Augerhandle* /forum/post/18573187
> 
> 
> "Three guys walk into a BestBuy... two walk out with 3d tv's and $100 pairs of 3d goggles. The third guy got the joke"



There. Fixed it for ya...


----------



## Fishtank




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vipfreak* /forum/post/18586051
> 
> 
> Some of your guys replys are funny. You totally missed the point... Completely.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I have no problem with the above even though I wouldn't waist my time, but when someone especially if it's marketing comes out and says... here is something new and revolutionary when it clearly isn't then I have a problem with it. Are iPods "new"? Are Apps "new"? Is 3D "new"? No... they're all just labeled slightly differently to make the public go stupid and go gaga with whatever **** they come out with. Not to mention them being to old to remember or to young to even look back to the past.




I wouldn't say we missed the point of the OP. It was complaining it's useless, will never matter, and has been done before.


I'm just saying there are different applications for the the technology this time that haven't been available before. The technology requires content to be made for it, it's quite possible there are enough options at this point for companies to make some money off of it this time. Sure the crappy 2D-3D conversion exists ( I have no idea if that was around "way back when") but that's not really the point of 3D in my opinion, it's just what they have available today as it's getting started.


Video games might be enough of a reason to drive sales of 3D tv's, the industry is massive and it's growing constantly. If the tech stays in tv's other formats might just offer it as an option long enough for it to really catch on.


It's pretty simple for the massively popular animation industry to re-release and send out all their titles in 3D, that's a lot of content that didn't exist before, and kids will probably demand it enough for parents to react.


It can quite easily snowball from there.


It just seems to me people are pointing out points in time where the content was few and far between, limited to theater's, or pretty much strictly movies or the random special circumstance.


I don't recall anybody advertising brand new tech, they are simply advertising 3D. Of course they won't advertise: "check out or really old 3D technology". Even so I'm not sure why it makes people mad. How does an ipod make you mad? It's an ipod.... It does the majority of the same functions as earlier mp3 players, however this time it streamlined the process, provided an easy way to access content. It took off and dominated the market.


I'm not saying it will happen to 3D, but even if the tech is old, it doesn't mean it's doomed. The environment the technology is released into has just as much of an impact on the success. This is not the same environment as 50 years ago.


----------



## cbcdesign




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vipfreak* /forum/post/18586051
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, I have no problem with the above even though I wouldn't waist my time, but when someone especially if it's marketing comes out and says... here is something new and revolutionary when it clearly isn't then I have a problem with it.



So in your world, full colour high definition 1080P 3D pictures in a home theatre environment isn't revolutionary or exciting! Wow!


The next decade is going to be a dull experience for people like you who don't like 3D. For the rest of us, the next couple of years are going to be an exciting time to be a home theatre enthusiast. I know which camp I would rather be in.


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cbcdesign* /forum/post/18588803
> 
> 
> The next decade is going to be a dull experience for people like you who don't like 3D. For the rest of us, the next couple of years are going to be an exciting time to be a home theatre enthusiast. I know which camp I would rather be in.



I honestly think you are giving 3D too much credit. I don't argue that the next few years will be exciting for home theater enthusiasts, but I believe there will be other "revolutions" in home theater that will dwarf 3D: OLED, 4K and other technologies in development show as much or more promise than 3D.


3D in its present form will never be universally adopted. The health-related problems some people suffer from watching it will either turn off a substantial percentage of consumers or very possibly become a cause for the healthcare industry. Such is not the case with other technology advances: HDTV, for instance.


----------



## Steve P.

Health issues are BS.


Everyone knows if you wear a tinfoil hat with along the 3-D glasses you'll be fine.


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18588940
> 
> 
> I honestly think you are giving 3D too much credit. I don't argue that the next few years will be exciting for home theater enthusiasts, but I believe there will be other "revolutions" in home theater that will dwarf 3D: OLED, 4K and other technologies in development show as much or more promise than 3D.
> 
> 
> 3D in its present form will never be universally adopted. The health-related problems some people suffer from watching it will either turn off a substantial percentage of consumers or very possibly become a cause for the healthcare industry. Such is not the case with other technology advances: HDTV, for instance.


_Complex issues, so I'll go with both Yes and No on all points..._










In some sense, 3D is this year's new CE product because the technology was mature enough from its use in military and industrial applications to be financially successful in the consumer marketplace . . . and the other candidates for 'the next CE new thing' were not quite ready. Unfortunately 'very large screen', OLED, and (2K/)4K are still a few years away.

_My personal prediction for the next home video 'thing' is home networking video distribution . . . which I think will be followed by 2K displays sized up (around) 24" at the same price point (i.e., 1080p 60" displays replaced by 2160p 84"), as I already see some improved upscaling technologies are being demoed! (Which takes us to 4K movies on 4th Gen optical disks as a replacement for BD starting approx. 2015-2020.)_







(Contrary opinions welcome!)


----------



## cctvtech

Health risks may be more serious than many suspect. Even RealD recognizes the possibility. In their SEC filing, they stated:


"_Research conducted by institutions unrelated to us has suggested that 3D viewing with active or passive eyewear may cause vision fatigue, headaches, motion sickness or other health risks. If these potential health risks are substantiated or consumers believe in their validity, demand for the 3D viewing experience in the theater, the home and elsewhere may decline. As a result, major motion picture studios and other content producers and distributors may refrain from developing 3D content, motion picture exhibitors may reduce the number of 3D-enabled screens (including RealD-enabled screens) they currently deploy or plan to deploy, or they may reduce the number of 3D motion pictures exhibited in their theaters, which would adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition and prospects. A decline in consumer demand may also lead consumer electronics manufacturers and content distributors to reduce or abandon the production of 3D products, which could adversely affect our prospects.


In addition, if health risks associated with our RealD eyewear materialize, we may become subject to governmental regulation or product liability claims, including claims for personal injury._"


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18588940
> 
> 
> I honestly think you are giving 3D too much credit. I don't argue that the next few years will be exciting for home theater enthusiasts, but I believe there will be other "revolutions" in home theater that will dwarf 3D: OLED, 4K and other technologies in development show as much or more promise than 3D.
> 
> 
> 3D in its present form will never be universally adopted. The health-related problems some people suffer from watching it will either turn off a substantial percentage of consumers or very possibly become a cause for the healthcare industry. Such is not the case with other technology advances: HDTV, for instance.



No - it will just be the entry price - OLED and 4K displays. Deal breaker.


----------



## JOHNnDENVER

I honestly think the health warnings turn on as many people as turn off. Just an odd ball world it is in that regard.


----------



## DonKingo

I'll wait for 3D till OLED is effortable ... let's say in 5 years ;-) ...


I just tried out 3D gaming but wasn't too impressed ... one of my friends didn't even notice the effect until I've shown him how the same game looks in 2D.


Besides I'm also suffering from the 3D "health problems" ... I'm getting sick after an hour of playing







.


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DonKingo* /forum/post/18590463
> 
> 
> I'll wait for 3D till OLED is effortable ... let's say in 5 years ;-) ...
> 
> 
> I just tried out 3D gaming but wasn't too impressed ... one of my friends didn't even notice the effect until I've shown him how the same game looks in 2D.
> 
> 
> Besides I'm also suffering from the 3D "health problems" ... I'm getting sick after an hour of playing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



You have to configure stereo winding to your preference (tolerance) level. Setting it too high for in your face action will soon turn into headache, nausea etc.


Remember, it's very important to set-up 3D correctly and I believe manufactures should educate the public on this matter.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JOHNnDENVER* /forum/post/18589790
> 
> 
> I honestly think the health warnings turn on as many people as turn off. Just an odd ball world it is in that regard.



Yes, I think so, too. I'm sure everyone has noticed the increasing frequency of prescription drug ads which go on and on about the awful side effects of the drug they're hawking. I don't think they can be satisfying any legal requirement (since a doctor has to prescribe the stuff), and I also don't think it plausible that they act through concern for public safety (I being a pessimist about human nature), so I can only think they do it because they've found it sells product.


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee* /forum/post/18591150
> 
> 
> Yes, I think so, too. I'm sure everyone has noticed the increasing frequency of prescription drug ads which go on and on about the awful side effects of the drug they're hawking. I don't think they can be satisfying any legal requirement (since a doctor has to prescribe the stuff), and I also don't think it plausible that they act through concern for public safety (I being a pessimist about human nature), so I can only think they do it because they've found it sells product.



The description of those side effects, as well as what the drug is good for, is part of the "labeling" and is controlled by the FDA. If they mention what it's good for, they must also recite the side effects - ever read one of those ads in a print version. It's the same as what's inside the package. The print version does often give some idea of the frequency of the side effects. These CYA disclaimers about 3D appear on other things too - particularly video games and seizures







The Real one sounds like full disclosure to _shareholders_ and not users so it's really CYA twice over


----------



## Rammitinski




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18588940
> 
> 
> The health-related problems some people suffer from watching it will either turn off a substantial percentage of consumers or very possibly become a cause for the healthcare industry. *Such is not the case with other technology advances: HDTV, for instance*.



I don't know about that - I experience some pretty strong ill effects from the compression artifacts that I'm seeing more and more of with HD.


----------



## cbcdesign




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18589258
> 
> 
> Health risks may be more serious than many suspect. Even RealD recognizes the possibility. In their SEC filing, they stated:
> 
> 
> "_Research conducted by institutions unrelated to us has suggested that 3D viewing with active or passive eyewear may cause vision fatigue, headaches, motion sickness or other health risks. If these potential health risks are substantiated or consumers believe in their validity, demand for the 3D viewing experience in the theater, the home and elsewhere may decline. As a result, major motion picture studios and other content producers and distributors may refrain from developing 3D content, motion picture exhibitors may reduce the number of 3D-enabled screens (including RealD-enabled screens) they currently deploy or plan to deploy, or they may reduce the number of 3D motion pictures exhibited in their theaters, which would adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition and prospects. A decline in consumer demand may also lead consumer electronics manufacturers and content distributors to reduce or abandon the production of 3D products, which could adversely affect our prospects.
> 
> 
> In addition, if health risks associated with our RealD eyewear materialize, we may become subject to governmental regulation or product liability claims, including claims for personal injury._"



Whenever new technology emerges, there is the inevitable suggestion of so called health issues. It happened with the invention of the locomotive steam engine and will happen with new electronic technologies too.


It's true that we don't know 100% what the long term effects of 3D are going to be but I suspect that people who will be affected in some way by this technology already know who they are.


Also, I think if anything is likely to cause health issues its the 2D-3D conversion features found on some of the 3D sets currently on the market. It doesn't work properly and the result is poor convergence and ghosting resulting in eye strain and headaches. Proper 3D is fine, its fake suedo 3D we need to fear!


----------



## walford

Some users with 120Hz TVs set their "motion flow" setting too high and this causes artifacts to be dispalyed when the images of small objects are interpolated and displayed.


----------



## mzpro5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cbcdesign* /forum/post/18593206
> 
> *Whenever new technology emerges, there is the inevitable suggestion of so called health issues.* It happened with the invention of the locomotive steam engine and will happen with new electronic technologies too.



Yeah and all the naysayers that picked on John Browning.


----------



## mikamonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NOOBZ1LLA* /forum/post/18438045
> 
> 
> It came to my attention today after visiting my local Sony Style store that 3D TV's are the most pointless mainstream technology ever.
> 
> 
> How did this happen? When did consumers get on top of rooftops and start screaming for 3D capable TV's in their living room? I don't think that ever actually happened.
> 
> 
> It was like one day a bunch of major corporations got together and were like hey we are going to tell the American sheeple they want 3D Tv's. But even the most greedy CEO has to be scratching his head trying to understand how a person would want to willingly wear a heavy pair of heavy glasses for hours at a time. Do you really think you can make it through Lord of the Rings with those things on?
> 
> 
> 
> First of all the technology itself is flawed. Have you watched 3D TV demos on LCD's? Were you blown away? Did you feel a revolution on the horizon in how people receive visual media?
> 
> 
> My biggest complaint really is that the 3D effect itself looks dinky and cheap. It reminds me of this toy I had when I was a kid. You know the one it was red and you put it up to your face and looked into it. It came with those circular paper discs with slides in them. You put the disc in the top and it had a lever you pull on that would switch to the next image. The 3D effect produced by the top LCD's today is similar to a childs toy from the 1980s.
> 
> 
> I really don't understand what everyone is so excited about. I'd rather have a local dimming LED/LCD TV without having to pay a premium for 3D ready, since as far as I know there is no 2010 flagship model minus 3D capability.
> 
> 
> 3D TV is nothing more than a blatantly engineered marketing gimmick.
> 
> 
> Am I wrong?



You are 100% correct. I cannot imagine more than a very,very small percentage of consumers wanting this.I've been a audio video gear nut for 30 years and I am not the least bit interested.Do these electronic companies have any contact with the real world or are they like moles in their labs seeing what great technology they can throw out next?

Do they have any idea how the TV fits into the lifestyles of the majority of individuals and families living on this planet? I don't think so.

A family sitting at the dinner table watching the news with 3D glasses on.

Mom getting kid's lunches ready watching Regis or Ellen in 3D.

Family finally gets together at 8 PM on a Thursday night to watch a movie and they all throw on the 3D stuff.

Son has friends over to watch the Eagle's game in 3D.This is insane.

Do you remember those cellophane strips you'd put on your TV to change a black and white to color?

The bottom part was tinted greenish and the top part bluish? I'm not making this up. Well, this is even nuttier.

This is insane.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mikamonkey* /forum/post/18606692
> 
> 
> You are 100% correct. I cannot imagine more than a very,very small percentage of consumers wanting this.I've been a audio video gear nut for 30 years and I am not the least bit interested.Do these electronic companies have any contact with the real world or are they like moles in their labs seeing what great technology they can throw out next?
> 
> Do they have any idea how the TV fits into the lifestyles of the majority of individuals and families living on this planet? I don't think so.
> 
> A family sitting at the dinner table watching the news with 3D glasses on.
> 
> Mom getting kid's lunches ready watching Regis or Ellen in 3D.
> 
> Family finally gets together at 8 PM on a Thursday night to watch a movie and they all throw on the 3D stuff.
> 
> Son has friends over to watch the Eagle's game in 3D.This is insane.
> 
> Do you remember those cellophane strips you'd put on your TV to change a black and white to color?
> 
> The bottom part was tinted greenish and the top part bluish? I'm not making this up. Well, this is even nuttier.
> 
> This is insane.



I am impressed. Really. You actually believe that 3D content will be as plentiful as HD content. Most of us realize it will be used sparingly with the main thrust being 3D movies and live 3D sports.


----------



## mikamonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18606979
> 
> 
> I am impressed. Really. You actually believe that 3D content will be as plentiful as HD content. Most of us realize it will be used sparingly with the main thrust being 3D movies and live 3D sports.



I see. I was under the impression that they plan to mass market these things.So it's going to be for a very tiny niche market like large sports bars etc. Sort of like big screen were back in the late 70s.

Because if they think more than a small handful of people are going to spend one dollar more for this added feature, they're wrong.

If they just throw it on at no additional cost, then maybe they'll move them off the shelves.


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mikamonkey* /forum/post/18607066
> 
> 
> Because if they think more than a small handful of people are going to spend one dollar more for this added feature, they're wrong.



Please tell us what you base your opinion on.


----------



## mikamonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken H* /forum/post/18607378
> 
> 
> Please tell us what you base your opinion on.



I base it on the hundreds of people I know.I base it on the American population. Why don't you give me some statistics about the following questions.

% people who heard of 3D.

% people who have basic understanding of how CRT or plasma or LCD works.Or 3D for that matter.

% people who know what a Hemi is.

If you find statistics concerning these questions, you'll understand what I'm saying.

Most , and I mean maybe 99% of Americans, can't tell you which is the longer wavelenth ,UV or IR.

On second thought, make that 99.9% of Americans don't have a clue.Does this have anything to do with whether 3D will be a success or not. Yes it does.


Truck companies had commercials bragging about Hemis,That made me laugh.

TV companies have comercials now talking about 3D. This makes me laugh.

Pioneer mentioned a quality that matters to picture quality. Where are they now?

What country do you live in?

Americans are not very smart. They don't care about 3D TV.They do not want to be bothered with this stuff.

Do you think the people on this site represent the actual real world America? Not even close.

So maybe a million people will be interested in 3D, Will that mean it's a success?

Color TV was a breakthrough,HDTV was a breakthrough,CDs were a breakthrough.

Quadrophonic sound wasn't . This won't be.

If I want 3D tv, I can do it now. I cover one eye.I'm sure you're familiar with how this is interpreted by the brain to be 3D.It's subtle and not headache inducing.Plus you don't have to wear goggles.

So give me some numbers to my questions and I'll check back in a year or two and eat crow.Or not.

I just hope you're still around to admit you were wrong, but I won't hold my breath.The odds of finding anyone on these forums who admit they're wrong is about the same as winning the power ball.


Let me give you an idea about the size of the market for this technology.

Remember those esoteric $5,000 turntables back in the 70s? Take the size of that market.That should give you an idea of the size of the market for this.


So now, please tell us what you base your opinion on.


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mikamonkey* /forum/post/18608272
> 
> 
> So now, please tell us what you base your opinion on.



20+ years of experience in the professional and consumer video business, specializing in advanced visualization, with 10+ years of experience at AVS.




> Quote:
> I just hope you're still around to admit you were wrong, but I won't hold my breath.



If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, and my track record here proves that. If anyone should be concerned about who's going to be around in a year, it's not you.


----------



## Davinleeds




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mikamonkey* /forum/post/18607066
> 
> 
> I see. I was under the impression that they plan to mass market these things.So it's going to be for a very tiny niche market like large sports bars etc. Sort of like big screen were back in the late 70s.
> 
> Because if they think more than a small handful of people are going to spend one dollar more for this added feature, they're wrong.
> 
> If they just throw it on at no additional cost, then maybe they'll move them off the shelves.



I don't understand. The market is offering this media and we'll spend our money on it if it works. If it doesn't it will die or be niche for those who want to spend. Just like anything else.


----------



## mikamonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken H* /forum/post/18608508
> 
> 
> 20+ years of experience in the professional and consumer video business, specializing in advanced visualization, with 10+ years of experience at AVS.
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, and my track record here proves that. If anyone should be concerned about who's going to be around in a year, it's not you.



That makes my point even more. You're little corner of the world is even further removed from the real world, especially America, than most members here.Your opinion is so skewed and biased it's ridiculous. That fact that you used it as a reason assures me that your thoughts on the success or failure of this technology is even more useless.

And I will make a point of admitting I'm wrong when and if the time comes.

And I've also seen this idea of equating number of posts and years as a member here with validity of ideas and comments.I don't subscribe to that theory for obvious reasons.

I recently switched from a family doctor whose been practicing for 35 years to one who graduated last year. I feel in much better hands now.


----------



## mikamonkey

I’ve seen this before. Remember the Polk SDA speakers and the Carver Sonic holography amplifiers 25 years ago . I do . They were amazing advances in sound reproduction technology. I bought the Polk SDAs and still use them to this day. I showed them to all my geek friends and they were amazed but were not interested, Why? The two requirements that they introduced that wasn’t needed for other speakers.Ken , I'm sure you are familiar. Others can google the requirements.But they worked for all the stereo cds and records which you already owned.You didn't have to go out and buy all new music.The requirements were minor compared to 3D TV. But it still was too much to ask of everyone except the extreme die hard audiophile.

Thing is, they weren’t marketed to the masses. Polk didn’t advertise them on TV. Extolling the virtues of interaural crosstalk cancellation.A commercial talking about interaural crosstalk.Hah.

But everyone’s heard of 3D, so there are commercials for 3D TVs during mainstream prime time programs.

Yet 3D TV is even more consumer effort intensive than Polk SDAs.

These are my points. Read them and come to conclusions about the psychology of consumers and the general public.Then tell me why you think 3D TV will be a huge hit. I don’t

One point I’d like to give into is this. I can see this possibly catching on in a tech savy country like Japan or India. Japan especially.

But in this country. Please.


----------



## Davinleeds

And marketing hasn't changed in the last 25 years? Here or India? Japan especially?


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mikamonkey* /forum/post/18608624
> 
> 
> That makes my point even more. You're little corner of the world is even further removed from the real world, especially America, than most members here.Your opinion is so skewed and biased it's ridiculous. That fact that you used it as a reason assures me that your thoughts on the success or failure of this technology is even more useless.
> 
> And I will make a point of admitting I'm wrong when and if the time comes.
> 
> And I've also seen this idea of equating number of posts and years as a member here with validity of ideas and comments.I don't subscribe to that theory for obvious reasons.
> 
> I recently switched from a family doctor whose been practicing for 35 years to one who graduated last year. I feel in much better hands now.



Whew. No point in discussing anything any further with you.


----------



## mikamonkey

One more nauseating observation. There are threads here ripping Panasonic apart concerning their rising MLL at certain hours of use. A huge issue concerning the very quality of their main flat panel line.Go to their web site. What do you see? You don't find that repulsive? I' would think that those who populate that rising black level thread do.Kind of like the staff of the Titanic changing all the bed sheets as she's going down.

Just one more reason why this 3D push is very annoying.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken H* /forum/post/18608705
> 
> 
> Whew. No point in discussing anything any further with you.





Agreed!


----------



## mikamonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken H* /forum/post/18608705
> 
> 
> Whew. No point in discussing anything any further with you.



Isn't that a rather extreme and subjective way of saying you take the opposite point of view from me?

If this were a "3D fan club thread" I'd be a major troll, but it's called

"3D HDTV is the most pointless mainstream technology ever."

With that I'm in total agreement. What seems to be the problem?


----------



## Davinleeds

Well, just like mine, your opinion doesn't matter. Sales do. Go buy one.


----------



## mikamonkey

I saw Avatar in 3D and in BD at home. I enjoyed it more in 2D. I was able to concentrate on the story more. I found 3D to be a distraction from the story. It added nothing to the story. That's why I watch movies. To see and hear a story. Great sound and great picture quality add to the story. 3D does not.

Hence my opinion of it being pointless.

Please argue your case and shoot down mine.

Please don't post a one sentence remark saying that I am way off base and that arguing with me is worthless.

Unless that's how things are done on this thread and opinions from newcomers are not welcome.

As the following indicates


Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken H

Whew. No point in discussing anything any further with you.



Agreed!


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mikamonkey* /forum/post/18609063
> 
> 
> I saw Avatar in 3D and in BD at home. I enjoyed it more in 2D. I was able to concentrate on the story more. I found 3D to be a distraction from the story. It added nothing to the story. That's why I watch movies. To see and hear a story. Great sound and great picture quality add to the story. 3D is not.
> 
> Hence my opinion of it being pointless.
> 
> Please argue your case and shoot down mine.
> 
> Please don't post a one sentence remark saying that I am way off base and that arguing with me is worthless.
> 
> Unless that's how things are done on this thread and opinions from newcomers are not welcome.
> 
> As



I get the impression with all of your negative posting that you just don't want any of us to have the right to enjoy 3D TV. You see, you get a choice. You don't ever have to watch 3D TV if you don't want to. However, some of us have really been looking forward to good looking 3D at home for a long time. The technology improvements over the last few years have made 3D very easy to implement now. Reading your posts makes me think that somehow a 3D TV stole your lunch. I'm sure that EVERYONE that saw Avatar prefers to only watch it in 2D from now on since that is a far better experience---yeah, right. And just so you know, I really resent having people say that I am being manipulated by the manufacturers when I want 3D TV. Contrary to what you said earlier, there is very little public knowledge about 3D TV. Sure there have been some ads, but so far this has been a very soft rollout. There will be a blitz of advertising later this year when all of the manufacturers have sets available and the 3D channels are available---so get ready for it.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mikamonkey* /forum/post/18608625
> 
> 
> I've seen this before. Remember the Polk SDA speakers and the Carver Sonic holography amplifiers 25 years ago . I do . They were amazing advances in sound reproduction technology. I bought the Polk SDAs and still use them to this day. I showed them to all my geek friends and they were amazed but were not interested, Why? The two requirements that they introduced that wasn't needed for other speakers.Ken , I'm sure you are familiar. Others can google the requirements.But they worked for all the stereo cds and records which you already owned.You didn't have to go out and buy all new music.The requirements were minor compared to 3D TV. But it still was too much to ask of everyone except the extreme die hard audiophile.
> 
> Thing is, they weren't marketed to the masses. Polk didn't advertise them on TV. Extolling the virtues of interaural crosstalk cancellation.A commercial talking about interaural crosstalk.Hah.
> 
> But everyone's heard of 3D, so there are commercials for 3D TVs during mainstream prime time programs.
> 
> Yet 3D TV is even more consumer effort intensive than Polk SDAs.
> 
> These are my points. Read them and come to conclusions about the psychology of consumers and the general public.Then tell me why you think 3D TV will be a huge hit. I don't
> 
> One point I'd like to give into is this. I can see this possibly catching on in a tech savy country like Japan or India. Japan especially.
> 
> But in this country. Please.



Your argument has a hole big enough to drive a locomotive through it. You have singled out one specific company and it's product(s). 3D is NOT being offered by one company to consumers. It is being offerred by an entire industry. There are literally hundreds of companys involved in bring 3D into consumers living rooms.


Why people get myopic and totally ignore the FACT that 3D is VERY successful in theaters today. Millions and millions of people are enoying 3D at their local cinema.


The crazy logic that people maintain is astounding. . . . FACT = People want to see 3D in theaters . . . SPECULATION = But they won't want to see 3D in their homes. That makes zero sense.


----------



## Vipfreak

I said this before, but I'll say it again here. I don't want to have anything to do with 3D (Home or Theaters) until it stops being a buzz word/marketing gimmick to sell more of the same crap that's already out and starts being something actually worth it or... mind blowing not mind numbing. I suppose if there's something like in Minority Report where it's almost literally a 3d image projected.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vipfreak* /forum/post/18609346
> 
> 
> I said this before, but I'll say it again here. I don't want to have anything to do with 3D (Home or Theaters) until it stops being a buzz word/marketing gimmick to sell more of the same crap that's already out and starts being something actually worth it or... mind blowing not mind numbing. I suppose if there's something like in Minority Report where it's almost literally a 3d image projected.



Hey - you can always hold out for a Star Trek Holodeck - see you in about 300 years.










In the mean time - those of us who love the S3D we see in 3D cinemas will be enjoying it right in our own living rooms.


----------



## TVOD

There were those who felt stereo sound was a needless gimmick. Color TV took nearly 15 years before it really became mainstream in the US, and the color standard was changed two years after it was initially standardized. Quadraphonic didn't take off but, in my opinion, the main issue was the technology of the time, which was matrixed stereo (SQ & QS) didn't have good separation in quad and degraded the stereo. Surround sound has done quite well now that there is digital formats to support it. The Alan Parsons quadraphonic mix of DSOTM, which is floating about now, showed what was capable back then. HD was around for about 20 years before the ATSC transmission began in the US, and most considered it during most of those years to be little more than an experiment that would ultimately fail.


At this point 3D is a bit like seeing what sticks on the wall, but this is how much of technology evolves. It's a bit like the chicken and the egg. The good thing is that it doesn't appear to be expensive to add to displays. The bad news is that it's more complicated to create, and it remains to be seen if the demand will justify the extra expense. At least for now, there are many trying hard by developing new techniques to make it succeed. The rest is up to the salesmen.


----------



## SoundChex

I just stumbled over this summary of a forecast [dated February 3, 2010] from In-Stat ....



> Quote:
> _"In-Stat projects worldwide 3D TV shipments will reach 41 million in 2014. 3D Blu-ray player shipments will track closely with 3D TVs."_



Of course, it's hard to know how realistic are the numbers in some of these CE marketplace econometric forecasts...?!


----------



## mikamonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18609204
> 
> 
> I get the impression with all of your negative posting that you just don't want any of us to have the right to enjoy 3D TV. You see, you get a choice. You don't ever have to watch 3D TV if you don't want to. However, some of us have really been looking forward to good looking 3D at home for a long time. The technology improvements over the last few years have made 3D very easy to implement now. Reading your posts makes me think that somehow a 3D TV stole your lunch. I'm sure that EVERYONE that saw Avatar prefers to only watch it in 2D from now on since that is a far better experience---yeah, right. And just so you know, I really resent having people say that I am being manipulated by the manufacturers when I want 3D TV. Contrary to what you said earlier, there is very little public knowledge about 3D TV. Sure there have been some ads, but so far this has been a very soft rollout. There will be a blitz of advertising later this year when all of the manufacturers have sets available and the 3D channels are available---so get ready for it.



You are getting the wrong impression.My fear is summed up by the following.

It appears to me that the major manufacturers are pushing this on the public, and spending resources on this at the expense of my being able to purchase a set with great 2D picture quality.

Case in point. I prefer plasma over the other flat panel technologies.A few months ago I was planning on replacing my 10G panny with a 12G. Strictly because I want a bigger screen.I made a mistake buying a 42 inch set.

Then I became aware of this huge issue. SEE THREAD.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1167339 

Now it appears that Panasonics biggest concern is getting 3D sets into consumers homes.

In my perfect world, they would be concentrating all of their effort on solving this critical 2D defect or short coming or whatever you want to call it first.


So, the way it stands now, Unless I buy a plasma from a company that no longer makes plasmas, I can't get a set with low MLL throughout the life of the set.

If I had a choice of now buying a 2D set with great PQ, which I don't,or buying a 3D set ,I'd have no problem.HDTV is very new. Why don't they improve that technology before going on to the next.It's purely a means of getting people to keep on replacing their sets.


----------



## mikamonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18609305
> 
> 
> Your argument has a hole big enough to drive a locomotive through it. You have singled out one specific company and it's product(s). 3D is NOT being offered by one company to consumers. It is being offerred by an entire industry. There are literally hundreds of companys involved in bring 3D into consumers living rooms.
> 
> 
> Why people get myopic and totally ignore the FACT that 3D is VERY successful in theaters today. Millions and millions of people are enoying 3D at their local cinema.
> 
> 
> The crazy logic that people maintain is astounding. . . . FACT = People want to see 3D in theaters . . . SPECULATION = But they won't want to see 3D in their homes. That makes zero sense.



And you say my argument has holes.Saying that just because people enjoy 3D in the theater they'll want it at home is very poor thinking. There are numerous huge differences between watching in a theater and at home.

I do think there will be some HT enthusiasts who will want this 3D feature to be available to them. But when I start seeing Samsung and others advertising this on TV, then it's clear to me that they have big plans to market this to the masses.

I don't know what masses they're seeing in the world, but it's not the masses I'm seeing.

If you are a HT installer or an audio video technician, you might argue that,but you're not seeing the real world masses either. Some one who installs a $10,000 Home Theater is very very rare.

I get the feeling that this is the world inhabited by a lot of posters here.


----------



## mikamonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TVOD* /forum/post/18609676
> 
> 
> There were those who felt stereo sound was a needless gimmick. Color TV took nearly 15 years before it really became mainstream in the US, and the color standard was changed two years after it was initially standardized. Quadraphonic didn't take off but, in my opinion, the main issue was the technology of the time, which was matrixed stereo (SQ & QS) didn't have good separation in quad and degraded the stereo. Surround sound has done quite well now that there is digital formats to support it. The Alan Parsons quadraphonic mix of DSOTM, which is floating about now, showed what was capable back then. HD was around for about 20 years before the ATSC transmission began in the US, and most considered it during most of those years to be little more than an experiment that would ultimately fail.
> 
> 
> At this point 3D is a bit like seeing what sticks on the wall, but this is how much of technology evolves. It's a bit like the chicken and the egg. The good thing is that it doesn't appear to be expensive to add to displays. The bad news is that it's more complicated to create, and it remains to be seen if the demand will justify the extra expense. At least for now, there are many trying hard by developing new techniques to make it succeed. The rest is up to the salesmen.



Wow, are you way off base.You are saying quad sound didn't go over because of technical issues? Are you missing the point.It didn't go over because people didn't want to be bothered with it. They were perfectly happy with their 2 speaker,1 amp,1 turntable stereo systems.

Some people did have quad sound set ups.The die hard audiophiles.Some people will have 3D systems. The die hard videophiles.


----------



## eddy_winds




> Quote:
> Some one who installs a $10,000 Home Theater is very very rare.



Not in L.A.


----------



## mikamonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eddy_winds* /forum/post/18610282
> 
> 
> Not in L.A.



Really. How many people out of 10,000,000 would you consider not rare?


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mikamonkey* /forum/post/18610142
> 
> 
> And you say my argument has holes.Saying that just because people enjoy 3D in the theater they'll want it at home is very poor thinking. There are numerous huge differences between watching in a theater and at home.



No - saying that they enjoy 3D at the theater and will not at home - THAT is poor thinking. It goes against precidence - they enjoyed surround sound in the theaters - they enjoy it at home.


Going to the theater is a more formal event then watching movies at home which is much more casual.


And 3D will be much more than movies. Sports will play a very big part - even bigger than movies in the growth of 3D due to the limited number of 3D movies.



> Quote:
> I do think there will be some HT enthusiasts who will want this 3D feature to be available to them. But when I start seeing Samsung and others advertising this on TV, then it's clear to me that they have big plans to market this to the masses.
> 
> I don't know what masses they're seeing in the world, but it's not the masses I'm seeing.



All new CE technologies have a life cycle which starts with the Early Adopter. The ads on TV are to generate awareness that the products exist.



> Quote:
> If you are a HT installer or an audio video technician, you might argue that,but you're not seeing the real world masses either. Some one who installs a $10,000 Home Theater is very very rare.
> 
> I get the feeling that this is the world inhabited by a lot of posters here.



The masses don't buy $3000 TV's. They buy $800 or $900 TVs.


When Blu-ray debuted in June of 2006 - there was plenty of advertising on TV. Did you honestly believe the masses were going to buy $1000 players and $35 movies when they could go out and buy a DVD player for less than $100 and a movie for $15? Now look at the prices of BD players and movies - less than $100 for a player and $10 to $20 for a movie - almost thhe same pricing as DVD players and movies


ALL CE products drop in price over time. To think differently would really be poor thinking.


----------



## JOHNnDENVER




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mikamonkey* /forum/post/18610163
> 
> 
> Wow, are you way off base.You are saying quad sound didn't go over because of technical issues? Are you missing the point.It didn't go over because people didn't want to be bothered with it. They were perfectly happy with their 2 speaker,1 amp,1 turntable stereo systems.
> 
> Some people did have quad sound set ups.The die hard audiophiles.Some people will have 3D systems. The die hard videophiles.



Hmmm, bad analogy. Quad morphed into surround sound which is a way way big hit by most accounts.


3D may eventually morph into something else I suppose. At work here? Most all male employees are pretty hot on the newest home 3D, at least 30% of the females seem at least mildly interested and have seen the ads for the new home 3D systems.


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18611024
> 
> 
> All new CE technologies have a life cycle which starts with the Early Adopter. The ads on TV are to generate awareness that the products exist.
> 
> 
> The masses don't buy $3000 TV's. They buy $800 or $900 TVs.
> 
> 
> When Blu-ray debuted in June of 2006 - there was plenty of advertising on TV. Did you honestly believe the masses were going to buy $1000 players and $35 movies when they could go out and buy a DVD player for less than $100 and a movie for $15? Now look at the prices of BD players and movies - less than $100 for a player and $10 to $20 for a movie - almost thhe same pricing as DVD players and movies
> 
> 
> ALL CE products drop in price over time. To think differently would really be poor thinking.


_Exactly!_ I still remember seeing the early adds for a 5.1 system based on the *Shure HTS-5300* . . . '_Home theater for about the same price as a small family car!_' . . . and there was a compact auto pictured in the ad suggesting to you that it was a price you already could afford.


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18611024
> 
> 
> The masses don't buy $3000 TV's. They buy $800 or $900 TVs.



And this [favorable price point] has more to do with the economics of the retail channel sales process than with the actual technology of the tv. The Big Box store is _geared_ to selling a tv mostly in the $299 to $899 price range. [_For the same reasons, the 'standard' computer hard drive is priced from $50 to $150 'every year', regardless of any advances in storage density technology..._]


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mikamonkey* /forum/post/18610111
> 
> 
> You are getting the wrong impression.My fear is summed up by the following.
> 
> It appears to me that the major manufacturers are pushing this on the public, and spending resources on this at the expense of my being able to purchase a set with great 2D picture quality.
> 
> Case in point. I prefer plasma over the other flat panel technologies.A few months ago I was planning on replacing my 10G panny with a 12G. Strictly because I want a bigger screen.I made a mistake buying a 42 inch set.
> 
> Then I became aware of this huge issue. SEE THREAD.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1167339
> 
> Now it appears that Panasonics biggest concern is getting 3D sets into consumers homes.
> 
> In my perfect world, they would be concentrating all of their effort on solving this critical 2D defect or short coming or whatever you want to call it first.
> 
> 
> So, the way it stands now, Unless I buy a plasma from a company that no longer makes plasmas, I can't get a set with low MLL throughout the life of the set.
> 
> If I had a choice of now buying a 2D set with great PQ, which I don't,or buying a 3D set ,I'd have no problem.HDTV is very new. Why don't they improve that technology before going on to the next.It's purely a means of getting people to keep on replacing their sets.



Why is your thinking so limited? What makes you think that Panasonic isn't addressing the rising black levels as well as constantly trying to improve the 2D picture? I hope you realize that the 3D technology took very little to implement. Once they had sets that could do 120Hz, then they only needed to include a 120Hz INPUT and an emitter to sync glasses. Obviously doing that wouldn't take any resources from trying to improve the sets in other ways, and I would argue that the faster phosphor decay rate implemented for 3D makes 2D viewing better as well. Again, my gut feeling is that a lot of negative posts on this forum(this whole thread for example) is from people that feel like they already have a huge amount of money tied up in current technology, and they don't want to feel pressure to upgrade. Evidently those people don't want to feel inferior by not having the state of the art technology, so they want to rant against it in the hopes that it won't happen. Here's the bottom line---the 3D tech is starting to happen now, and it's going to grow. You won't even be able to measure the success, because eventually 3D tech will be in every tier of TV sold(again, because it's so EASY to implement). Perhaps you could measure success by the number of glasses sold, but even then you won't know how often people watch 3D. I'm sure I'll still watch 2D the majority of the time after I get a 3D TV. I will however, be able to watch 3D sports and movies when I want to. If you choose not to, fine. And again, I resent being considered as some sort of sucker by falling for what the manufacturers are trying to push. They're offering it for two reasons--the tech is easy to implement, and people do want it.


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18611802
> 
> 
> Why is your thinking so limited? What makes you think that Panasonic isn't addressing the rising black levels as well as constantly trying to improve the 2D picture? I hope you realize that the 3D technology took very little to implement. Once they had sets that could do 120Hz, then they only needed to include a 120Hz INPUT and an emitter to sync glasses. [. . .]



Actually, I suspect that a 3D set also needs a second complete frame buffer of memory "for the other eye". But I agree that the only major technology requirement for 3D is faster screen cycling rates . . . and it's clear that the CEMs were already looking into 120Hz/240Hz/480Hz displays as a method of improving 2D playback.


----------



## tvine2000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mikamonkey* /forum/post/18610111
> 
> 
> You are getting the wrong impression.My fear is summed up by the following.
> 
> It appears to me that the major manufacturers are pushing this on the public, and spending resources on this at the expense of my being able to purchase a set with great 2D picture quality.
> 
> Case in point. I prefer plasma over the other flat panel technologies.A few months ago I was planning on replacing my 10G panny with a 12G. Strictly because I want a bigger screen.I made a mistake buying a 42 inch set.
> 
> Then I became aware of this huge issue. SEE THREAD.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1167339
> 
> Now it appears that Panasonics biggest concern is getting 3D sets into consumers homes.
> 
> In my perfect world, they would be concentrating all of their effort on solving this critical 2D defect or short coming or whatever you want to call it first.
> 
> 
> So, the way it stands now, Unless I buy a plasma from a company that no longer makes plasmas, I can't get a set with low MLL throughout the life of the set.
> 
> If I had a choice of now buying a 2D set with great PQ, which I don't,or buying a 3D set ,I'd have no problem.HDTV is very new. Why don't they improve that technology before going on to the next.It's purely a means of getting people to keep on replacing their sets.



Pushing this on the public? How so?If thats true ,whats new.You miss the point! You can choose. If you don't like 3dhdtv,don't buy it and don't try to make us think 3d is pointless.Guess what i hate to burst your bubble.The industry could care less what your think about 3d tv.AND just like you start your car in the morning or do anything else,3ds comin like it or not.YOU know why,cause the industry wants it,so push they will!


----------



## mikamonkey

I get sick on amusement park rides. I got sick at Avatar. Real sick. I'm not alone. I've jumped on just about every new technology in the past 30 years, budget permitting.

None of those advances in tech made me sick. This will be a huge concern.

On the bright side, we'll have a new syndrome that the drug companies can treat with a $200/month prescription. They came up with RLS so this will be a breeze.And I'm not being flippant. I'm being serious.


----------



## JOHNnDENVER




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mikamonkey* /forum/post/18612745
> 
> 
> I get sick on amusement park rides. I got sick at Avatar. Real sick. I'm not alone. I've jumped on just about every new technology in the past 30 years, budget permitting.
> 
> None of those advances in tech made me sick. This will be a huge concern.
> 
> On the bright side, we'll have a new syndrome that the drug companies can treat with a $200/month prescription. They came up with RLS so this will be a breeze.And I'm not being flippant. I'm being serious.



Hmm, I dare says people will buy and use the driugs just so they can enjoy 3D too. Funny how that works.


----------



## SoundChex

_Today's epiphany:_ It seems pretty clear [_to me at least!_] that we are still in the *'Very, Very Early Adopter Phase'* of home 3DTV [_as I know no one who owns any 3D equipment yet._







] But while posters on this forum might agree with me on that point, I'm not sure how many would agree about where we are in the *Gartner Hype Cycle* ...?! [There is a *graphic* of the *Gartner Hype Cycle* on this interesting *Ofcom webpage* .]


I would have said that we were still in (or perhaps just out of) the *'Technology Trigger Phase'* of the *Gartner Hype Cycle*, but that we had not yet reached anywhere near the *'Peak of Inflated Expectations'* . . . but some posters sound more like they think we are already in the *'Trough of Disillusionment'*...?

_So I guess it's little wonder we don't seem to be able to reach any knid of consensus...?!_


----------



## cakefoo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mikamonkey* /forum/post/18612745
> 
> 
> I get sick on amusement park rides. I got sick at Avatar. Real sick. I'm not alone.



Wah wah wah. I get sick playing Call of Duty, and I'm not alone. Doesn't stop it from selling 12 million copies every year.


----------



## Dreamaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JOHNnDENVER* /forum/post/18611059
> 
> 
> Hmmm, bad analogy. Quad morphed into surround sound which is a way way big hit by most accounts.
> 
> 
> 3D may eventually morph into something else I suppose. At work here? Most all male employees are pretty hot on the newest home 3D, at least 30% of the females seem at least mildly interested and have seen the ads for the new home 3D systems.



This is what I'm seeing too. At work the news that I have a 3DTV spread with me only telling a few people about it. I've been approached by several people wanting to know what the experience is like. They are interested, and they aren't people that come to this site. They want it as soon as it hits a reasonable price point.


People I strike up a conversation with (servers, customers, clerks, and managers) show a lot of interest in 3DTV when I bring it up. I think Milkamonkey is wrong - there is a ton of interest in the public for this despite the high price point, lack of content, and limited advertising (I watch TV every night and I've seen maybe 2 ads in the last month).


----------



## buzzard767

Sorry monkey. You have your exact opinion and it is yours alone. Live in your subjective world. I just turned 66. Gimme 3D for all it has to offer. Turn up the sub woofer to the clipping point and piss off my neighbors. Immerse me in the media. Entertain me with the latest technology. Make me more a part of it than I have ever been before.

meanwhile.... I remember when Stereo Review Magazine said that CD's will never eclipse LP's...........


----------



## mzpro5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *buzzard767* /forum/post/18618743
> 
> 
> Sorry monkey. *You have your exact opinion and it is yours alone*. Live in your subjective world. I just turned 66. Gimme 3D for all it has to offer. Turn up the sub woofer to the clipping point and piss off my neighbors. Immerse me in the media. Entertain me with the latest technology. Make me more a part of it than I have ever been before.
> 
> meanwhile.... I remember when Stereo Review Magazine said that CD's will never eclipse LP's...........



Monkey is not alone. Many here have said their friends are all hyped up over 3D. Funny how I have the exact opposite experience. No one I know, including several HT enthusiasts, have any interest in #D at home. There will be a niche market but will not take off to the masses.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mzpro5* /forum/post/18620375
> 
> 
> Monkey is not alone. Many here have said their friends are all hyped up over 3D. Funny how I have the exact opposite experience. No one I know, including several HT enthusiasts, have any interest in #D at home. There will be a niche market but will not take off to the masses.



I'm going to be fence sitter regarding 3D I'm going to wait to see where it goes but I have to admit when I went to the retail shop where they have the samsung 3D tv there were quite a number of people that were waiting to see it in action( not enough glasses to go around) and most that did were very impressed.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dreamaholic* /forum/post/18616716
> 
> 
> This is what I'm seeing too. At work the news that I have a 3DTV spread with me only telling a few people about it. I've been approached by several people wanting to know what the experience is like. They are interested, and they aren't people that come to this site. They want it as soon as it hits a reasonable price point.
> 
> 
> People I strike up a conversation with (servers, customers, clerks, and managers) show a lot of interest in 3DTV when I bring it up. I think Milkamonkey is wrong - there is a ton of interest in the public for this despite the high price point, lack of content, and limited advertising (I watch TV every night and I've seen maybe 2 ads in the last month).



I have to admit there are people at work that are intrested in it also. There definitley pushing it out there.


----------



## buzzard767




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18620803
> 
> 
> I'm going to be fence sitter regarding 3D I'm going to wait to see where it goes but I have to admit when I went to the retail shop where they have the samsung 3D tv there were quite a number of people that were waiting to see it in action( not enough glasses to go around) and most that did were very impressed.



As a golfer, when I saw the Masters in 3D my mind was made up. After decades of listening to the commentators and players talk about the terrain undulations including the greens and not being able to see it because of 2D limitations I am now totally sold on 3D's ability to take me to the tournament. When football comes in 3D I'll be there, and even though I'm not much of a soccer fan you can bet I'll be watching some of the coming World Cup.










Buzz


----------



## SoundChex

_In some sense, I guess it depends on just how much bandwidth you plan to have available in the future..._


During the *NTT R&D Forum 2010*, held on February 23–24, 2010, a panel discussion entitled “ Carving out the Future with ICT Innovations ” was held...


> Quote:
> "There is a considerable interest in three-dimensional (3D) television. The current 3D systems are twin-lens systems, which use two cameras to produce a 3D image. Viewing a highly stereoscopic 3D video for a prolonged time causes eye strain and leaves the viewer feeling tired. To address this problem, NHK ceased its study on twin-lens 3D in 2003 and instead began studying *integral 3D television* , which provides a more natural image just as holography does. This 3D television technique requires about a hundred times as much information as Super Hi-Vision. As these examples indicate, NHK is undertaking research on providing highly realistic and non-fatiguing video, audio, and information to general viewing audiences."



...which appears to put an upper bound on the data through-put required of (say) *1600 times* that used for 2D HDTV!

_We're going to need some really big pipes, and/or some great data compression algorithms . . . plus replacement TVs, AVRs, and Disk Players, of course!_


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/18623390
> 
> 
> ...which appears to put an upper bound on the data through-put required of (say) *1600 times* that used for 2D HDTV!



That's large, but why is it an upper bound?


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee* /forum/post/18623912
> 
> 
> That's large, but why is it an upper bound?


_'Quick and Dirty' answer:_ If you fragment every 4x4 pixel block of an SHV (HDMI4) frame, then combine the corresponding fragments from each block, you end up with *16* 'similar' 1980x1024, i.e., HDMI1 quality, frames which could be compressed individually with approximately the same effectiveness as can be a current HDMI picture frame. But this ignores the pixel color correlation [likely] present across the corresponding pixels in 'adjacent' frames (e.g., two or more adjacent _blue sky_ pixels in the original SHV frame). So the similarity of the adjacent HDMI1 frames will allow for some additional compression [reducing the original data multiplier below *16*], or in the worst case NO additional compression [leaving the original data multiplier of *16* unchanged]. Also, it seems like the (quoted) *100 fold* increase in raw data content, may add yet another 'layer' of 100 'similar' HDMI4 frames required to capture the solid aspect of the picture. This should lead to another opportunity for compression...?

_In any event, that's my best 'wild assed guess!'_


----------



## NOOBZ1LLA

I have to admit 3D sports sounds interesting.


The safe bet is probably not to buy the first generation of 3D technology. If history has taught us anything, it's the first generation of anything has bugs.

Unless it's your norm to buy a new TV every 2-3 years I'd hold off on this 2010 product cycle.


----------



## eddy_winds




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NOOBZ1LLA* /forum/post/18624298
> 
> 
> I have to admit 3D sports sounds interesting.
> 
> 
> The safe bet is probably not to buy the first generation of 3D technology.



A Samsung HL67A750 comes to mind


----------



## TVOD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mikamonkey* /forum/post/18610163
> 
> 
> Wow, are you way off base.You are saying quad sound didn't go over because of technical issues? Are you missing the point.It didn't go over because people didn't want to be bothered with it. They were perfectly happy with their 2 speaker,1 amp,1 turntable stereo systems.
> 
> Some people did have quad sound set ups.The die hard audiophiles.Some people will have 3D systems. The die hard videophiles.



I think it was the opposite. The audiophiles didn't like it because it compromised the stereo. Lower end quad systems were available, but even the high end systems were unconvincing. QS and SQ didn't provide as much of an immersive experience as two channel stereo, and compromised the stereo when listening in two channel.


On the other hand, there were some experimental broadcasts done at the time in the early 70s courtesy James Gabbert on KIOI and another FM station to broadcast discrete 4 channel using discrete quadraphonic source material usually from tape. These were far better than the matrixed recordings at the time. Listeners were having "quad parties" for these special events. One of the later broadcasts was a live concert that also included television (KPIX). Gabbert later tried a discrete multiplex system for quad, but by that time quadraphonic had a bad reputation and there was little interest. I think if the public had heard this sort of quality it may have had a better chance of acceptance.


When surround sound became widely available for the home, there was AC3 to provide a discrete experience. This did not compromise the stereo and created greater immersion. It also grew from the cinema experience which the public had grown to enjoy. 3D is also transitioning from the cinema experience. The public has a chance to see examples of what good 3D can look like, as opposed to only hearing bad examples of quadraphonic when it was introduced.


I do have a concern that as the common approach at the moment is to use side by side images, it can reduce horizontal resolution. Hopefully full resolution schemes will be available.


----------



## tvine2000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TVOD* /forum/post/18627387
> 
> 
> I think it was the opposite. The audiophiles didn't like it because it compromised the stereo. Lower end quad systems were available, but even the high end systems were unconvincing. QS and SQ didn't provide as much of an immersive experience as two channel stereo, and compromised the stereo when listening in two channel.
> 
> 
> On the other hand, there were some experimental broadcasts done at the time in the early 70s courtesy James Gabbert on KIOI and another FM station to broadcast discrete 4 channel using discrete quadraphonic source material usually from tape. These were far better than the matrixed recordings at the time. Listeners were having "quad parties" for these special events. One of the later broadcasts was a live concert that also included television (KPIX). Gabbert later tried a discrete multiplex system for quad, but by that time quadraphonic had a bad reputation and there was little interest. I think if the public had heard this sort of quality it may have had a better chance of acceptance.
> 
> 
> When surround sound became widely available for the home, there was AC3 to provide a discrete experience. This did not compromise the stereo and created greater immersion. It also grew from the cinema experience which the public had grown to enjoy. 3D is also transitioning from the cinema experience. The public has a chance to see examples of what good 3D can look like, as opposed to only hearing bad examples of quadraphonic when it was introduced.
> 
> 
> I do have a concern that as the common approach at the moment is to use side by side images, it can reduce horizontal resolution. Hopefully full resolution schemes will be available.



I get the jest of your post. It amazes me everytime a new technology comes out,so does the boo birds,and they sharpen there axes,ready chop some heads off!And these are the folks who should know by now technology never rests and trys to get better. history always proves the boo birds wrong,,,everytime! It started with the 50's with b&w tvs[nobody wants tvs in the home] wrong! zoom up to home video and vcrs[nobody wants to watch movies at home] laserdisc[nice but again won't replace vcrs] that one was true but laserdisc lasted longer anyone thought. Here comes DVD[nope won't last costs to much blah,blau,blau!] replaced vcrs.meanwhile hdtv starts coming in.[nope won't happen not enough broadcasts] proved wrong again. Along come the hi def war.[blu-rays toast because hd dvd has a running start and blu-rays not ready for prime time.Blu-ray wins ,but wait it costs to much and it will be years before its affordable.....wrong again.Here comes 3dhdtv and the naysayers are out again in full force.There at this forum and other forums.there everywhere!Yet we have golf in 3d ,a baseball game coming in 3d.in the coming years tv shows will be in 3d.I'm a nobody in knowledge when it comes to technology.NOTING compared to some of you here.Yet to me 3d is right in front of your faces and your trying to ignore it,maybe it will go away.One reason might be because even if you like it you have to buy new gear tv,bd player,glasses.Isn't that always the way these days .you want the best computer ,you got to get a new puter.The point is like or not the ''industry '' likes and wants 3dtv and thats really the reason it will happen.To me at the time HDdvd made more sense and blu-ray didn't,guess what happened.So friends all your reasons why 3dtv won't make it or the ''its just a fad crowd'',listen up,history proves it doesn't matter what any of us think, for some reason or reasons things that don't make any sense seem to find a way to sucess.3dtv to some is a fad,and blau, blau,blau,but here it is and it seems to have some wind behind it.3d will get better and may end up being everything we all hope it to be, will see. All i know is [from history] never say never.


----------



## Jmouse007

Fransis Ford Coppola: "3D is Tiresome":

http://www.cepro.com/article/francis...is_tiresome/K5 


His man points:


1) 3D will never take off until you no longer need to use glasses.


2) Some people get sick, for others 3D is a distraction and it hinders the theater going experience.


3) 3D is just a gimmick being used by studios to charge extra for the ticket and to fill theater seats


4) 3D is just a gimmick being employed by the electronics industry to get you to throw out the HD equipment you have so you have to buy it all over again.


The above are the exact same reasons many here on AVS have been giving for months to make the point that 3D is nothing but a fad being foisted upon the public for $$$$$.


One more thing; contrary to the previous post, 3D is NOT a "new technology", it has been around for over 60 years and it failed in the past and still has not taken off because of many of the reasons stated in the article.


----------



## RobertR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tvine2000* /forum/post/18635618
> 
> 
> It amazes me everytime a new technology comes out,so does the boo birds,and they sharpen there axes,ready chop some heads off!And these are the folks who should know by now technology never rests and trys to get better. history always proves the boo birds wrong,,,everytime!



It's not at all accurate to suggest that those who aren't that impressed with the 3D craze are somehow all Neo-Luddites reflexively opposing every new technology. I was skeptical of quad, never bought into it, but was happy to see optical media (first LD, then DVD, and now Blu Ray) and high definition. There are very good reasons why 3D isn't as big a deal as previous developments, such as the fact that since greater than 99.99% of all movies were never made for 3D, it's useless for them. Trying to "convert" would be at least as bad as the abomination of colorizing B&W movies. Your "group A was wrong about technology B, therefore all criticisms of 3D are invalid" logic is badly flawed.


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jmouse007* /forum/post/18637276
> 
> 
> 1) 3D will never take off until you no longer need to use glasses.
> 
> 
> 2) Some people get sick, for others 3D is a distraction and it hinders the theater going experience.
> 
> 
> 3) 3D is just a gimmick being used by studios to charge extra for the ticket and to fill theater seats
> 
> 
> 4) 3D is just a gimmick being employed by the electronics industry to get you to throw out the HD equipment you have so you have to buy it all over again.
> 
> 
> The above are the exact same reasons many here on AVS have been giving for months to make the point that 3D is nothing but a fad being foisted upon the public for $$$$$.
> 
> 
> One more thing; contrary to the previous post, 3D is NOT a "new technology", it has been around for over 60 years and it failed in the past and still has not taken off because of many of the reasons stated in the article.



Roger Ebert also doesn't particularly like 3D. He is a little more open-minded when he says in " Why I Hate 3-D (and You Should Too)" 
*"I'm not opposed to 3-D as an option. I'm opposed to it as a way of life."
*


He at least is smart enough to realize that it is _not_ an FCC mandated transition that will _require_ us all to purchase new TVs and wear glasses all the time.

*FOLKS IT IS AN OPTION*


If you don't like it , don't buy the equipment . If enough people feel this way, the "market" will come into play. If the best TV out there for your needs ends up having a 3D option , make sure to keep it in the OFF position , and don't but any glasses - and stop whining










(Puts me in mind of the whiners who hate that DSLRs can now do video - This developed out of the emergence of "Live View" where you can see the image "live" on the LCD on the back of the camera (and zoom in to absolutely nail focus on the right thing) like on Point-and-shoot" cameras - instead of peering through the dark optical viewfinder. Some were ho-hum about this but more and more are understanding how to benefit from it. It has its uses but is still lacking in replacing _all_ of the things users were used to. There was no overt whining - just some "Huh?" reactions. However, when the mfrs wrote a bit of code to pipe this image to the storage card (i.e. allowed video recording) they blew up and started whining - Why did they spend all that money (_sic_) on something I didn't want?? Why didn't they spend it on improving the contrast/dynamic range from 1,000,000 to 1,000,010/12 stops to 12.5 stops - or whatever the pet peeve was. Folks told them to "Just don't use it, it's not costing you much, if anything, and there are a lot of folks who do use it and it is selling a lot more cameras and keeping the price down for you, so it actually might be saving you $$!")


Improving TV technology so that 3D is really good is likely to have some benefits in the 2D world and already it doesn't seem to be adding much to the $ of the latest sets improved 2D PQ. Upgrade when the mood/wallet/tech improvement moves you, but don't claim 2D picture quality is going downhill or failing to continue to improve incrementally.


----------



## Rammitinski




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AJSJones* /forum/post/18638183
> 
> *FOLKS IT IS AN OPTION*
> 
> 
> If you don't like it , don't buy the equipment . If enough people feel this way, the "market" will come into play. If the best TV out there for your needs ends up having a 3D option , make sure to keep it in the OFF position , and don't but any glasses - and stop whining



I think it's just the extreme, blatant hyping going on around it that sets a lot of people off, more than feeling they are being "forced into it". Most people who are pooh-poohing it know they aren't.


You're mainly seeing a backlash to that more than anything else here.


By the way, 2D PQ _is_ going downhill in some arenas. Like from broadcast providers. Big deal, encoders improve - but nothing looks as good as it did 10 years ago, and it never will again.


----------



## TVOD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rammitinski* /forum/post/18638386
> 
> 
> nothing looks as good as it did 10 years ago, and it never will again.



I would agree that multicasting has degraded much of broadcasting. However a lot of the source material has improved. Live cameras are better. Features are moving to 4K both for scanning and electronic acquisition. The downconversion to HD can have better detail than if shot at HD resolution. Blu-ray has better codecs and bitrates. D* was the poster child for bad MPEG 2 compression, but has improved with MPEG4. Yes there is alot of bad, but also alot of good too.


One issue that 3D will push is improved display rates. The newer 3D plasmas have faster green phosphors which reduces lag.


While 3D has been around for quite a while, the display technology was the weakest point and probably still is as it requires glasses. Production wasn't much better. With advancements on both including careful post production, it has a much better chance of taking hold. What could kill it is alot of bad 3D, which could easily come from greedy releases of converted material. Perhaps conversion will be hard to tell someday, but for now the public seems well aware of its substandard quality.


Even with 3D distribution one can view a single channel for 2D. We'll know if 3D is becoming mainstream when we see local news and the WWE use it. ESPN's 3D channel should be interesting to see evolve.


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rammitinski* /forum/post/18638386
> 
> 
> I think it's just the extreme, blatant hyping going on around it that sets a lot of people off, more than feeling they are being "forced into it". Most people who are pooh-poohing it know they aren't.
> 
> 
> You're mainly seeing a backlash to that more than anything else here.
> 
> 
> By the way, 2D PQ _is_ going downhill in some arenas. Like from broadcast providers. Big deal, encoders improve - but nothing looks as good as it did 10 years ago, and it never will again.



I guess I'm not seeing much hyping (yet) - advertising, yes some. I do see a lot of enthusiastic folks (who can't wait) waiting for it to materialize. When the stores start having a big selection, their flyers will start hyping them. Our BB flyer this week didn't even mention 3D .


Agreed. I recall some wonderful OTA HD 10 years ago until some channels starting multicasting and putting traffic and weather on their subchannels and screwing with the bitrates. And that was before I got HD from satellite - now there are too many channels and the PQ is not as good. Then they started adding tons more HD and the situation got worse. 3D may indirectly make that even worserer


----------



## scanspeak

If I crash my car after watching a 3D movie, who do I sue?


----------



## Servicetech571

Think about it, HD has been out for 10yrs and there is STILL content being produced in SD. Most of the big networks have gone HD, how much of the content is stretched out/reconverted SD material? I'd be happy just to have all of the shows in HD.


----------



## KUJayhawk20659




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scanspeak* /forum/post/18640402
> 
> 
> If I crash my car after watching a 3D movie, who do I sue?



Isn't that like drowning after you ate a big lunch? We all know you have to wait a half hour before swimming....


----------



## cbcdesign

Quite. Only a moron would leave a 3D movie theatre and would try and drive if they having difficulties adjusting to normal vision.


I found, much to my surprise, that my vision was perfectly normal before I had even left the screening room following Avatar. With modern really good 3D, my vision doesn't seem to be remotely effected. Since many millions saw the same movie I did and there was not a wealth of road traffic accidents, I think we can assume I am not alone.


----------



## KUJayhawk20659




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cbcdesign* /forum/post/18640788
> 
> 
> Quite. Only a moron would leave a 3D movie theatre and would try and drive if they having difficulties adjusting to normal vision.
> 
> 
> I found, much to my surprise, that my vision was perfectly normal before I had even left the screening room following Avatar. With modern really good 3D, my vision doesn't seem to be remotely effected. Since many millions saw the same movie I did and there was not a wealth of road traffic accidents, I think we can assume I am not alone.



Agreed, same thing with myself and the people I had seen the movie with in imax 3d.


----------



## gc8710




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KUJayhawk20659* /forum/post/18640687
> 
> 
> Isn't that like drowning after you ate a big lunch? We all know you have to wait a half hour before swimming....



Nope. Not swimming after eating is a myth.It's an old wives' tale.Within reason of course.I do find that if I eat immediately after running 10 K, I might have digestive problems.

Impaired vision after 150 minutes of 3D viewing is a verifiable medical condition.It's similiar to vision after wearing amber vision glasses, but 3D after effects last longer.


----------



## tvine2000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RobertR* /forum/post/18637864
> 
> 
> It's not at all accurate to suggest that those who aren't that impressed with the 3D craze are somehow all Neo-Luddites reflexively opposing every new technology. I was skeptical of quad, never bought into it, but was happy to see optical media (first LD, then DVD, and now Blu Ray) and high definition. There are very good reasons why 3D isn't as big a deal as previous developments, such as the fact that since greater than 99.99% of all movies were never made for 3D, it's useless for them. Trying to "convert" would be at least as bad as the abomination of colorizing B&W movies. Your "group A was wrong about technology B, therefore all criticisms of 3D are invalid" logic is badly flawed.



I'm saying is [plain engish] to each there own.I don't think 3d is a craze.If hollywood can use 3d to get people back in the movie houses,they will.I still say why is there so much manufactering going on with 3d? samsung,panny and sony have 3dtvs. all 3 have 3d bd players.Why the big push if its just a craze,fad.


Were not talking barbie dolls here or pet rocks. theres a lot being spent on r&d to putting the product in the stores.What i'm hearing is what i heard with hdtv,hd dvd & blu-ray[it useless,its a fad,its a craze]You and i have no idea how far 3d is going to get.All we can really do is to agree to disagree.


----------



## chaz01




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Servicetech571* /forum/post/18640685
> 
> 
> Think about it, HD has been out for 10yrs and there is STILL content being produced in SD. Most of the big networks have gone HD, how much of the content is stretched out/reconverted SD material? I'd be happy just to have all of the shows in HD.



yup


Brought that up earlier in thread. Got challenged that it was never part of mandate. Mandate Schmandate. If all is digital why continue with crappy 480i?


----------



## gc8710

I don't know. I started thinking what would happen if I got a 3D TV.I come home from work at night after staring at a computer all day. Or I want to relax on the weekend.I just want to relax with a movie or a Phils game.Now if the movie is Blu Ray and the Phils are HD, then all the better.If I have the option of throwing on the specs and watching in 3D maybe I would. For I while.

I'm pretty sure than after a very short time this is going to get real old. Soon I'll want to relax in front of the TV and if given the choice of regular old HD or 3D,I'll just plop in the chair and watch with the least amount of effort.

I just think 3D is going to lose that new car smell real quick.


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18641533
> 
> 
> Impaired vision after 150 minutes of 3D viewing is a verifiable medical condition.



Says who?


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by gc8710
> 
> Impaired vision after 150 minutes of 3D viewing is a verifiable medical condition



.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken H* /forum/post/18643037
> 
> 
> Says who?



I'm thinking he means " ... for the small fraction of folks who suffer from the effects, it's verifieable - not for everyone"


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN

look everyone! My post is going to be firm and to the point. It's still amazes me how many people still attack 3D as new technology and for the wrong reasons. Some attack it because they are jealous that others may have 3D capable sets right now and so they want to make the 3D owners feel that 3D is not anything in particular and obviously try to make such claims that 3D will fade away and some other none sense! Some others attack it for the fact they recently upgraded their TV set to a newer LCD/LED model or brand and do not feel the need to make another upgrade to 3D Ready set right now, you get others folks attack it for the fact they heard from their own friends bashing 3D so they start bashing it too. You get totally other folks that never really buy anything new with a word called 'Ready' Or lets say they are hesitated to buy Ready TV sets, like 3D Ready, HDTV Ready etc... for the fact they feel that first production for any TV with a word 'Ready' in it usually have its problems but then they usually buy the product later because eventually all the first production issues will be fixed in upcoming years! Lastly some people are somewhat concern and bothered to get 3D ready sets for the fact they need to wear 3D glasses to watch 3D content and that bother most people for both prices on the 3D glasses and the fact they have to wear glasses every time they need to watch 3D content!! I can list a lot more reasons of how people attack 3D but i will leave it at that and answer all the concerns at the following paragraph!





The fact of the matter any new tech comes in people always divide them self into groups whether they love the new tech or really hate it but you always get people in the middle too that feel it could be promising or think it is only alright. The fact is new techs sometimes has its serious pros to make things easier/flexible or clearer for people to use. Like how Blu rays now compare to Standard Definition DVDs or even Standard definition signals via Satellite providers or Cable providers or simple technologies like how DVRs/DVD Recorders compare to the old VCRs, I can certainly list a lot of techs to compare but you ought to know what i mean. While new techs have its pros, sometimes it comes with it cons because there is no such thing as perfect world or perfect Technology that does it best, some technology are great and come close to perfect but not quite there! And this is where people make the mistake all the time demanding the truly best tech which they should know already there is no such thing as totally best tech.





If 3D ought to fail or fade away, then most people should have predicted High Definition should have failed when we first heard about HD and how good it was that have higher resolution and clearer picture compare to Standard definition but many attacked HD because for the fact it has 16:9 ratio and how that will affect the Standard Definition picture quality in any HDTV Ready TVs or any full HDTV TVs. You can look for hate forums that attacked HD like no tomorrow!! Look at forums how people attack HD DVD over Blu rays, or vice verse on how people attack Blu ray and favoring HD DVD or how people attack Blu rays and hated the idea to replace all their DVDs, or how people attack DVDs when it first came and liked their VHS better and didn't want to replace their VCR, i can even go on and mention a lot more but you might my idea.






3D at the present time is only a feature which is called a 3D Ready TV. NOT EVEN a Full 3D TV that replaces 2D TV, not at all. Which is a mistake that people make in this forum, they always make it sound that 2D TV is already gone and how they will never buy any 3D set, they sure missing the point that 3D TV READY sets are only a feature and nothing else at least at the present time and it will remain a feature for a long time! The people that attack 3D content, they don't know what they are talking about. How can people attack something you didn't even see or test?? We hardly even have any content to test the 3D Ready sets. People making judgment by looking at 3D at display in stores which has been proven that Best Buy and sears have made wrong setup and it is fascinating how everyone have different stories to share on how they felt 3D really look like. TESTING 3D is when you buy 3D TV set and get 3D new Glasses (also 3D blu ray) and test several materials, like different 3D blu rays, and several Cable/Satellite feeds and also to test 3D in the next couple years. EVERYONE REMEMBER HOW BLU Rays USED TO SUCK in QUALITY and how WELL THE BLU RAYS PLAYERS were EXPENSIVE too!!!! now Blu rays players are cheaper and quality is fairly stable in most movies but how long did it take??? It took its time obviously and obviously 3D will take its time to look real good! but obviously when 4D comes around in the future people will make the mistake of attacking it too!





Don't fell into non sense that folks claim that 3D was back in 20 years ago and it failed. Obviously 20 years ago, HD wasn't even exist and the limitation for 3D to be on Blu ray and into HD feeds was not an option. NOW 3D gives the option for people to use in different sources, in HD and blu ray and even games! Which will indeed matter and it will be totally different experience. 3D Ready TV sets make 2D TV picture quality get better, NOW THIS IS totally different than HDTV Ready TVs or Full HDTV now, which SD picture quality look silly in most sets!





You hear a lot of folks claim that 3D will look better in sports and Games.. Of course!! 3D has the depth and pop out effect that makes you feel you are right in front of a stadium, l mean look at my username in here. I planned to travel in South Africa to watch all World cup matches LIVE in STADIUM!! but once i heard World cup will be in 3D that made me save a lot of money, for starters it saves money for the plane, hotel, food, tickets to game! I can feel that im in a stadium (closer experience) while watching 25 games which is not too bad in 3D TV set! YOU CAN Always compare sports to physically being in stadium vs being at home and have similar effects! BUT in Movies, you don't watch the actos/director in action really, you only watch movies in big screen perhaps so you can't really compare it like sports and being in stadium!!!





LASTLY! The cost for 3D TV set is not expensive, TV prices getting a lot less now a days, i remember the days that TV were easily cost above 7 grand easily with less features!! NOW you can get a TV 3D TV set with 20 glasses and still pay much less than couple years or some years ago when TV prices were extremely High! BUT anyways im confident that in the future 3D TV will be cheaper and viewable in higher quality and without any glasses when a full 3D TV comes out and this may talk between 10 years if not even more, believe it or not! And remember 3D TV sets improve 2D picture quality and some rumors indicate 3D Blu rays players should play better 2D blu rays and give better picture quality in DVD as well than 2D Blu rays as well!!!


----------



## RobertR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tvine2000* /forum/post/18641627
> 
> 
> I still say why is there so much manufactering going on with 3d? samsung,panny and sony have 3dtvs. all 3 have 3d bd players.Why the big push if its just a craze,fad.
> 
> 
> Were not talking barbie dolls here or pet rocks. theres a lot being spent on r&d to putting the product in the stores.



Your logic still doesn't hold up. So there's a fair amount of money being sunk into it. So what? History is _littered_ with technologies that had a lot of money sunk into them, and wound up failing. Some people are obviously _wishing_ it succeeds, but wishes don't make reality.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RobertR* /forum/post/18643903
> 
> 
> Your logic still doesn't hold up. So there's a fair amount of money being sunk into it. So what? History is _littered_ with technologies that had a lot of money sunk into them, and wound up failing. Some people are obviously _wishing_ it succeeds, but wishes don't make reality.



You are absolutely right. I agree with you 100% . . .


The same holds true for those wishing it will fail.


----------



## gc8710




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken H* /forum/post/18643037
> 
> 
> Says who?



Let me put it this way. I was negatively affected after seeing Avatar in 3D. Now if I were in my 20s when I had young eyes, I'm sure I'd be very exited by 3D.I never thought about my eyes and they served me well. I'm now in my 50s with older eyes and all the problems many my age experience with vision. I've done all in my power to stave off body aging. Eat right, run 10K 365 days a year, no smoke, very low body fat. There isn't much I could do to prevent my eyes from aging.3D is just too challenging for a lot of people with older eyes, including me.


----------



## mzpro5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18645339
> 
> 
> Let me put it this way. I was negatively affected after seeing Avatar in 3D. Now if I were in my 20s when I had young eyes, I'm sure I'd be very exited by 3D.I never thought about my eyes and they served me well. I'm now in my 50s with older eyes and all the problems many my age experience with vision. I've done all in my power to stave off body aging. Eat right, run 10K 365 days a year, no smoke, very low body fat. There isn't much I could do to prevent my eyes from aging.3D is just too challenging for a lot of people with older eyes, including me.



At 58 I have to agree. I was very uncomfortable for the first 10-15 minutes of Avatar and after the film had to sit for about 10 minutes in the car as I felt fairly disoriented. I think a fair portion of the market that wears prescriptive lenses will have problems with 3D.


On another point someone mentioned that they are filling the theaters for 3D movies. If this is the case I would think the studios would be fighting the idea of home 3D all the way as it will cutdown on theater receipts.


----------



## cneely8




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rammitinski* /forum/post/18638386
> 
> 
> I think it's just the extreme, blatant hyping going on around it that sets a lot of people off, more than feeling they are being "forced into it". Most people who are pooh-poohing it know they aren't.
> 
> 
> You're mainly seeing a backlash to that more than anything else here.



+1


fanboys abound and there's only one dvd available, right? (monsters/aliens, I think).


It didn't help that when I checked it out for myself to see if the fanboys were right I got sick and a horrible headache, within minutes.


----------



## star_man

Maybe 3D is to make us all hurl, then we have to buy another large combo. That's the studio throwing a bone to the theater operators.


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mzpro5* /forum/post/18646077
> 
> 
> At 58 I have to agree. I was very uncomfortable for the first 10-15 minutes of Avatar and after the film had to sit for about 10 minutes in the car as I felt fairly disoriented. I think a fair portion of the market that wears prescriptive lenses will have problems with 3D.



After 50+ years suffering vergence-accommodation conflicts while watching 3D fire hoses 'cover me in water', plus fish and/or Michael Jackson leaping out of the screen [and over my head!], I found viewing Avatar 3D to be quite without problems. I suspect for two reasons:


(1) I carefully sat on the center line at mid screen height [in order to minimize the max. difference in any vergence-accommodation conflicts . . . which would be between the center of the screen and the farthest corner of my field of view], and just less than about (1.25 x ScreenHeight) away from the screen [providing about 90 degree screen view between far left and far right . . . and reducing all of the theater beyond the screen to my far peripheral vision only].


(2) Cameron greatly reduced 3D effects so that they (mostly) enhanced the movie's texture rather than the usual tricks of structuring a shot around some 'extreme 3D' visual. And without the frequent-and-dramatic readjustments between "almost only 2D" and "extremely 3D", I found watching Avatar no more fatiguing than any 2D movie...







[_And like my "Joe Cool Avatar" Smilie, I too wear prescription lenses . . . but only 'Cool Shades' whenever possible, Dudes!_]


----------



## buzzard767

Lots of young people have sensitive eyes too but I'm not sure where that fits into the 3D controversy. As to you youngsters in your 50's....eh? I'm 66 and have abused my eyes all my life, sand blasted them playing into the wind out of bunkers, taken the glare off the Gulf of Mexico water on countless fishing trips, the wind on North Dakota hunting trips. I've been treated for corneal abrasion twice. I even suffered a serious redout after a 3 1/2 negative G inverted spin in a fighter jet in 1969.


I loved Avatar in 3D and I loved the Masters. No rest period before driving required. I know I'm going to love football in 3D and probably BD movies as well. It's each to his own guys. If you don't like it, don't buy it. You have a choice so do what works for you.


Oh yeah, my vision is still 20/20. Good genes I guess.


Buzz


----------



## gc8710

Let me offer more reasons why I think this is much more appealing to the young than older folks.

It's unlike most other advances like HDTV,BD, better audio. I'm speaking for myself ,but I think these preferences apply to most people in my age group.

I can think of 3 instances where 3D might add to the viewing experience.

1.Certain types of movies. You know the ones, and they are geared towards younger audiences.

2.Video games, once again, mostly younger men by a mile.

3.Sports.This one is for all ages but I can think of one possible snag here. In the earlier days of HDTV, a lot of HD sports broadcasts didn't have all the cameras in HD. Now,I guess these 3D cameras are going to be just as expensive as HD cameras .But if they switch between 3D shots and 2D shots, that just isn't going to work. It'll drive the viewer crazy.


----------



## Lumpy

I'm a late 40's prescription glasses wearer with retinopathy in my future. My vision with glasses is excellent now but I'm glad 3D is available and being promoted now before vision problems inevitably ruin the experience for me. The only real problem I had watching Avatar was finding a good seat since the theaters were packed for the whole time it ran.


I already have a mits, a sammy 2233rz and nvidia 3d Vision. I have no issues with the glasses. I think it's pretty silly to be concerned about how you look wearing them. I'm just not that insecure. As a long time gamer I've never had a "Oh god, that chick saw me" moment while in the privacy of my home. In fact some young, pretty, female cousins of mine visited me and were fighting over whos turn it was to wear them. I'm geeky enough it wouldn't matter anyway.


I can't wait till Nascar aires in 3D. Should be a lot of head bobbing, especially combined with surround.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18646461
> 
> 
> I'm speaking for myself ,but I think these preferences apply to most people in my age group.



This manifests a tendency toward self-contradiction: if you speak only for yourself, you should resist the temptation to try speaking for your age group. Which, by the way, is what? Are we two in the same age group? I'm 68 and find 3D very appealing. But maybe you're, like, about 92, and would put me among the youngsters.


----------



## Steve P.

Apparently CORALINE and ICE AGE: DAWN OF THE DINOSUARS are now officially being offered by mail to Panasonic buyers, so the one movie will soon be three.







(Word is CORALINE is only exclusive until September.)


Sony is said to be offering a couple of titles bundled with their initial TV offerings as well, and then there's the four DirecTV 3-D channels launching June 11th.


Plenty of new content to make you sick and give you migranes!


----------



## R Johnson

Tonight on Charlie Rose:

May 17, 2010

Jeffrey Katzenberg the CEO of Dreamworks Animation takes us inside the world of 3-D and making movies.


----------



## buzzard767




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Johnson* /forum/post/18648229
> 
> 
> Tonight on Charlie Rose:
> 
> May 17, 2010
> 
> Jeffrey Katzenberg the CEO of Dreamworks Animation takes us inside the world of 3-D and making movies.



Pardon my ignorance but where and when?


----------



## mzpro5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *buzzard767* /forum/post/18648277
> 
> 
> Pardon my ignorance but where and when?



Check your local PBS station. Charlie Rose is a syndicated show and on at different times in different areas of the country.


----------



## buzzard767




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mzpro5* /forum/post/18648298
> 
> 
> Check your local PBS station. Charlie Rose is a syndicated show and on at different times in different areas of the country.



Thank you - found it, following 90 minutes worth of my heritage.


Semper Fidelis


Buzz


----------



## tvine2000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RobertR* /forum/post/18643903
> 
> 
> Your logic still doesn't hold up. So there's a fair amount of money being sunk into it. So what? History is _littered_ with technologies that had a lot of money sunk into them, and wound up failing. Some people are obviously _wishing_ it succeeds, but wishes don't make reality.



As smart as you sound. I agree with Lee,sounds like you wish it to fail.After all this is not old 3d technology,it is different.But i'll leave that to Lee because he's done is homework and can explain it far better then i ever could. 3d is being looked at as just a fad and will pass.What if it isnt a fad,what if it really works.you don't think down the road the consumer may buy into it,when the price is right?


If your looking for a new tv and its 3d ,why not buy it? you still can watch 2d,and 3d if it takes off.I have no idea if 3d will fail or not. I'm not dumb enough to pass judgement at this point.I've said it many times i thought for sure hd dvd was gonna be a winner,because blu-ray wasn't ready for prime time,yet blu-ray was the winner.I was wrong as wrong could be.I hope if 3d suceeds i'll hear ''i was wrong from you''. I will say that if it fails.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tvine2000* /forum/post/18652871
> 
> 
> As smart as you sound. I agree with Lee,sounds like you wish it to fail.After all this is not old 3d technology,it is different.But i'll leave that to Lee because he's done is homework and can explain it far better then i ever could. 3d is being looked at as just a fad and will pass.What if it isnt a fad,what if it really works.you don't think down the road the consumer may buy into it,when the price is right?
> 
> 
> If your looking for a new tv and its 3d ,why not buy it? you still can watch 2d,and 3d if it takes off.I have no idea if 3d will fail or not. I'm not dumb enough to pass judgement at this point.I've said it many times i thought for sure hd dvd was gonna be a winner,because blu-ray wasn't ready for prime time,yet blu-ray was the winner.I was wrong as wrong could be.I hope if 3d suceeds i'll hear ''i was wrong from you''. I will say that if it fails.









He is just one of those people that fail to realize that 3D 'READY' Is only a feature right now. I was around when HDTV 'READY' TVs was around and THERE WERE above 90% of time SDTV TV and HDTV was just a feature. People are just too silly to think that such feature can be bothersome for them that much!!




If you go check BestBuy website for instance you will find out that BestBuy have around 17 3D READY TVs (FEATURE). Which that means by the following year there is going to be more 3D feature in more TVs and i read an article that mention the newer OLED TVs will have 3D feature that companies feels that 3D will work best with the newer technology obviously referring to OLEDs! What does that mean?? It means in an year or two most if not all sets will include 3D feature, think about it like 720p vs 1080p just about most if not all sets in the market now are mainly 1080p!




So i guess if you are going to upgrade your TV whether sooner or later, higher probability it will have 3D feature... Its still amazes me in how people go on about how they will never buy 3D set (FEATURE) but they also fail to realize when they buy new LED TV, or OLED TV / PLasma TV, it will most certainly include 3D feature whether people like it or not... NOW TELL ME, ARE YOU FORCED TO USE 3D FEATURE TO MAKE YOUR TV TO WORK???


----------



## fafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WorldCup2010ESPN* /forum/post/18653488
> 
> 
> So i guess if you are going to upgrade your TV whether sooner or later, higher probability it will have 3D feature... Its still amazes me in how people go on about how they will never buy 3D set (FEATURE) but they also fail to realize when they buy new LED TV, or OLED TV / PLasma TV, it will most certainly include whether they like it or not... NOW TELL ME, ARE YOU FORCED TO USE 3D FEATURE TO MAKE YOUR TV TO WORK???



Makers of TV's will only do this so long as there is a glimmer of hope that 3D is headed toward mainstream adoption. If and when that seems to be a longshot, this "feature" will be dropped like lead.


fafner


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafner* /forum/post/18653519
> 
> 
> Makers of TV's will only do this so long as there is a glimmer of hope that 3D is headed toward mainstream adoption. If and when that seems to be a longshot, this "feature" will be dropped like lead.
> 
> 
> fafner








Respond to me in around 10 years and we shall see if 3D is main standard or it is totally dead.




TV Makers that happens to be world wide known companies and Satellite channels owners wouldn't spend millions on something that are going to fail. So i guess with some people opinions, The new channels that are coming in June and the ones that are coming in the upcoming in 2011/2012 will all close their channels soon enough because 3D is going to fail. Boy, you guys are indeed been around enough to know how things really work!


----------



## fafner

We certainly do know how things work. Consumers buy what they want....not what makers think they want. Someday you will hopefully realize that.


fafner


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafner* /forum/post/18653557
> 
> 
> We certainly do know how things work. Consumers buy what they want....not what makers think they want. Someday you will hopefully realize that.
> 
> 
> fafner






makers can have the will to force things down people throat but they do it at the right time and after some time is pass enough. Now regarding on how consumers buy anything they want...Can you please give me the percentage and where to buy SDTV right now? Perhaps those CRT TVs once that really give a better quality in SD.


----------



## fire407

There are a lot of short sighted people on this forum. S3D is still very new. People are seeing the state of 3D today and making judgements, when there's basically NO CONTENT. There aren't even 3D TVs available yet from every manufacturer, and there's no DirecTV 3D channels yet. There's only sporatic commercials from Samsung and LG right now, so we're NOT being flooded with ads for 3D. Yet people post like it's been around for a while and a lot of posters say it's already being marketed heavily(even though it's not). In a month, Sony will join Samsung, Panasonic, and LG offering 3D TVs. DirecTV and some cable companies will have their 3D channels up. The advertising WILL increase and the general public will become more aware of it. By the end of the year Vizio will have 3D TVs in Wallmart. It's going to happen whether some people here want it to or not.


----------



## chaz01

It is the mission of consumable goods companies to create demand for their products.


No doubt, this will be a long term marketing mission. We are comfortable with what we know, but think in very simple terms (not you people here, but in general). Branding is a great example of this and I find myself reverting to this sub consciously. Need to sell this to the younger gen. We (old 50 year olds like myself) play a role with purchasing power in the short term(


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18653624
> 
> 
> There are a lot of short sighted people on this forum. S3D is still very new. People are seeing the state of 3D today and making judgements, when there's basically NO CONTENT. There aren't even 3D TVs available yet from every manufacturer, and there's no DirecTV 3D channels yet. There's only sporatic commercials from Samsung and LG right now, so we're NOT being flooded with ads for 3D. Yet people post like it's been around for a while and a lot of posters say it's already being marketed heavily(even though it's not). In a month, Sony will join Samsung, Panasonic, and LG offering 3D TVs. DirecTV and some cable companies will have their 3D channels up. The advertising WILL increase and the general public will become more aware of it. By the end of the year Vizio will have 3D TVs in Wallmart. It's going to happen whether some people here want it to or not.






Exactly, i can't believe the amount of people that are making a judgment WITHOUT seeing any content for some extended of time. I agree that 3D is very new and people have got to give it some time and wait for some content first. ESPN3D and some others in DirecTV/Comcast and by the end of year Dish Network will have 3D channels too. We could get an idea how the 3D is going to look via Satellite/Cable feeds by June which is less than 30 days, that also explain that people can't even wait to see some content before giving their feedback! Later in the year we expect 3D blu rays as well and this going to be different experience as well and we ought to check that one too. I ALSO think 3D is going to be bigger deal in the future and not necessarily now. Future we can expect better 3D READY sets (Feature) maybe even when full 3D TV comes out in the next years when we can watch 3D without glasses and enough content exist as well!





Yeah, regarding 3D TV hitting Walmart. Indeed the push is only going forward and trust me when they push like that, you normally can tell they are serious about it. This is not only 3D TVs movement but Satellite/cable/ 3D blu rays, Gaming industry and even porn industry as well lol.


----------



## buzzard767

Every one of you is merely guessing as to the success or failure of 3D on television. You are convinced of your reasoning but ONLY the future will tell if you are or are not correct. Meanwhile, we wait for content. When it arrives we will find "proofs" to validify our thoughts, but not the long term success (or no) of 3D TV. If NFL football comes close to The Masters experience then count me in - long term. For those who are more into movies and don't get content by a year from now, then maybe the entire experiment is doomed. All we can do is wait and see, and gripe, and bicker, and try and show one another how we know for sure what the future will bring. Duh?


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *buzzard767* /forum/post/18653915
> 
> 
> Every one of you is merely guessing as to the success or failure of 3D on television. You are convinced of your reasoning but ONLY the future will tell if you are or are not correct. Meanwhile, we wait for content. When it arrives we will find "proofs" to validify our thoughts, but not the long term success (or no) of 3D TV. If NFL football comes close to The Masters experience then count me in - long term. For those who are more into movies and don't get content by a year from now, then maybe the entire experiment is doomed. All we can do is wait and see, and gripe, and bicker, and try and show one another how we know for sure what the future will bring. Duh?





That's true. At least you are being reasonable by waiting for more content and waiting what the future will bring. No one can really disagree












Ah, did you see the Golf Masters with Comcast eh? How well did you like it?


----------



## buzzard767




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WorldCup2010ESPN* /forum/post/18653951
> 
> 
> That's true. At least you are being reasonable by waiting for more content and waiting what the future will bring. No one can really disagree
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, did you see the Golf Masters with Comcast eh? How well did you like it?



Yes, at a friend's house on a 55UNC7000. I thought it was absolutely terrific. I'm a seasonal resident and am leaving in a week so won't be replacing my 2D until I return in October. Right now I'm leaning heavily toward a PN58C8000 as it will be in a light controlled room. For me, it's sports; golf and football in particular but I salivate over 2011 March Madness. I'm not much of a gamer so I suppose I'm missing something I'm not even aware of - oops, rambling. Bottom line, I need a new telly anyway so I'm more or less future proofing. If 3D doesn't make it I'll still have an excellent 2D set and prior to 3D who could ask for more?


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *buzzard767* /forum/post/18654039
> 
> 
> Yes, at a friend's house on a 55UNC7000. I thought it was absolutely terrific. I'm a seasonal resident and am leaving in a week so won't be replacing my 2D until I return in October. Right now I'm leaning heavily toward a PN58C8000 as it will be in a light controlled room. For me, it's sports; golf and football in particular but I salivate over 2011 March Madness. I'm not much of a gamer so I suppose I'm missing something I'm not even aware of - oops, rambling. Bottom line, I need a new telly anyway so I'm more or less future proofing. If 3D doesn't make it I'll still have an excellent 2D set and prior to 3D who could ask for more?






Oh that's nice! I am waiting to get my new TV as well and i know already its going to have 3D feature. I love soccer and you know that the World Cup is coming up in less than 30 days so i am hopping to get new TV in time for it, its cool to hear golf looked really good in 3D with Comcast so i guess ESPN 3D ought to look the same if not better, according to sources ESPN 3D will be better than the Masters somehow. I have Comcast but i am still waiting for my local management office to give me an answer if ESPN 3D will be in my town in June 11, I know Comcast announced ESPN 3D but there is still 10% may not get it, so im not totally sure yet, i will know by next week i guess.





Oh i totally agree 3D is a nice feature, you are going to get a nice 2D TV and along with it 3D feature and it's not like you are always going to watch 3D, it could be once in a while! If 3D fade away, no big deal at all... You still have a perfect 2D TV that will enjoy paying the money for and that is what i have been claiming all along in this thread and others as well. It's more or less a feature until 3D becomes a main standard in future years, if not, no harms done! Also something else to note the 3D capability allows/gives 2D a better picture as well, according sources that is the case, so technically i don't see 3D feature being bad feature, I like folks to think about it like having Netflix in TVs via streaming internet, its nice feature if you want to use your TV for streaming instead of using Blu ray player for that. It is true people may lean toward to watch Neflix better at other devices but after all its a feature with the TV, You can use it or not at your own will, no harms done!


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18645339
> 
> 
> Let me put it this way. I was negatively affected after seeing Avatar in 3D. Now if I were in my 20s when I had young eyes, I'm sure I'd be very exited by 3D.I never thought about my eyes and they served me well. I'm now in my 50s with older eyes and all the problems many my age experience with vision. I've done all in my power to stave off body aging. Eat right, run 10K 365 days a year, no smoke, very low body fat. There isn't much I could do to prevent my eyes from aging.3D is just too challenging for a lot of people with older eyes, including me.



Thank you for retracting your previous statement. There is no medical research that shows any 'impaired vision' after any length of viewing 3D.


Your personal experiences, although I'm sure are valid, do not represent how the vast majority of viewers, of any age, will react to 3D.


Of all the 3D viewers I have first hand experience with, which are well over a couple thousand, only a handful, maybe a couple of dozen, ever had issues with 3D. Of those, only a few were over the age of 50.


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mzpro5* /forum/post/18646077
> 
> 
> At 58 I have to agree. I was very uncomfortable for the first 10-15 minutes of Avatar and after the film had to sit for about 10 minutes in the car as I felt fairly disoriented. I think a fair portion of the market that wears prescriptive lenses will have problems with 3D.



This is also anecdotal opinion.


See my comments directly above. Oh, and I've been wearing prescription glasses and viewing active stereo content for over a decade, with no ill effects as yet.


----------



## walford

What has not yet been anounced is what resolution the World Cup 3D will be broadcast in by ESPN-3D. Hopefully it will be in 720p Top & Bottom format since that can provide the best/smothest content for action sporting events since every frame will have 1280 origional filmed 720p pixels per row.


----------



## RobertR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tvine2000* /forum/post/18652871
> 
> 
> I've said it many times i thought for sure hd dvd was gonna be a winner,because blu-ray wasn't ready for prime time,yet blu-ray was the winner.I was wrong as wrong could be.I hope if 3d suceeds i'll hear ''i was wrong from you''. I will say that if it fails.



Why would you hope to hear me say I was wrong about something I never said (namely, that it will fail)? If you _carefully_ read what I said, you'd realize that my posts were in response to your breathless comparison to technologies that succeeded in spite of predictions of failure, and ballyhooing all the money being spent on 3D. I pointed out that the logic of the posts does NOTHING to prove that 3D WILL succeed. Your conclusion that such a statement amounts to a "prediction" is faulty.


----------



## fire407

Again, how will you measure success or failure? In two or three years almost every TV sold will have 3D capability. However, I know I will still be watching 2D the vast majority of the time, and so will almost all of the other 3D TV owners. You could measure the number of glasses sold, but even then you don't know how often people are wearing them. Here's my take. The only way it could be considered a failure is if ALL 3D channels go away, and they stop making 3D Blu-ray movies. I think that once it's here, it's here to stay. Many of us want it and can't wait for more and more content. I've seen 3D football game demos, and when I can see NFL and college games in 3D on a regular basis, I will be thrilled. The only hope for the haters on this forum is to try to keep it from happening, and it's too late for that.


----------



## RobertR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18654632
> 
> 
> The only way it could be considered a failure is if ALL 3D channels go away, and they stop making 3D Blu-ray movies.



By that logic, DVD Audio and SACD aren't failures as long as someone _somewhere_ is still making them. If the programming remains very limited and or shrinks to practically nothing, the hardware will mean nothing. BTW, you confuse "hatred" with indifference.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RobertR* /forum/post/18654779
> 
> 
> By that logic, DVD Audio and SACD aren't failures as long as someone _somewhere_ is still making them. If the programming remains very limited and or shrinks to practically nothing, the hardware will mean nothing. BTW, you confuse "hatred" with indifference.



That is an apples to oranges comparison. If you restrict your comparison to just 3D BD, then it is apples to apples. BOTH are storage media.


Having 3D channels on CBL or SAT is way beyond plastic 5 inch media.


And we already know that both of those audios formats have already failed to garner mainstream appeal. They are pure niche products. They were destined for that moniker from the day they were born.


And OBTW - do all Sony products support DVD-A? How about the PS3?


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *walford* /forum/post/18654486
> 
> 
> What has not yet been anounced is what resolution the World Cup 3D will be broadcast in by ESPN-3D. Hopefully it will be in 720p Top & Bottom format since that can provide the best/smothest content for action sporting events since every frame will have 1280 origional filmed 720p pixels per row.






hmmmm I see, i remember reading articles that did mention that ESPN 3D will use 720p. I can look again but good point though, i guess they ought to make it best and smoothest content for all the money they are throwing in for 3D, i think they will use 720p. How did they broadcast the Masters? I really didn't follow that one at all to be honest.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18654632
> 
> 
> Again, how will you measure success or failure? In two or three years almost every TV sold will have 3D capability. However, I know I will still be watching 2D the vast majority of the time, and so will almost all of the other 3D TV owners. You could measure the number of glasses sold, but even then you don't know how often people are wearing them. Here's my take. The only way it could be considered a failure is if ALL 3D channels go away, and they stop making 3D Blu-ray movies. I think that once it's here, it's here to stay. Many of us want it and can't wait for more and more content. I've seen 3D football game demos, and when I can see NFL and college games in 3D on a regular basis, I will be thrilled. The only hope for the haters on this forum is to try to keep it from happening, and it's too late for that.






Well put! Even as much as i like 3D, i shouldn't really measure success or failure unless i see materials and judge from my own experience and looking at the reports perhaps. But you bring a good which i also mention before, in 2 or 3 years it is very true that all if not most TV sets will have 3D capability.... I guess if you think about it logically, wouldn't that be alone considered a success anyway, i mean for starters that they might guarantee sales for 3D ready sets for anyone that upgrade their TV to a newer Model that are going to happen to be 3D, right? I think sales will be solid enough in that prospect, the real question if they sell more when there some content and some years to pass by to have 3D sets viewable without glasses!




And don't mind Robert, i really don't think he knows what he is talking about!


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RobertR* /forum/post/18654779
> 
> 
> By that logic, DVD Audio and SACD aren't failures as long as someone _somewhere_ is still making them. If the programming remains very limited and or shrinks to practically nothing, the hardware will mean nothing. BTW, you confuse "hatred" with indifference.







Wow, I am not trying to be offensive here but honestly, your argument is not working here and this to show that you really do not have the slightest clue how TV/TV Makers/Satellite/Hollywood really work! and i don't think you know how 3D TV ready sets really work too





With that in mind, You should research on how much it cost to put channels for satellite. TV makers and Satellite providers are not going to gamble or throw millions/billions of dollars over something they know it will fail. You can try to convince people the opposite but perhaps to others that are not really educated. The truth of the matter, There is team work going on to help 3D take off and it appears the same team work did happen with the transition from SD to HD and here again it's the same transition but in a different way basically the difference from HD to 3D HD this time. If they know 3D really going fade away, we shouldn't really see channels switching to 3D wagon now do we eh?





Instead of debating, i think you and others should wait and we will see whose predication is going to be correct in the future years because i think its going to be extremely hard to debate while some really have no clue how technology really work.


----------



## gc8710




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken H* /forum/post/18654235
> 
> 
> This is also anecdotal opinion.
> 
> 
> See my comments directly above. Oh, and I've been wearing prescription glasses and viewing active stereo content for over a decade, with no ill effects as yet.



You've been watching stereo for a long time. Isn't that anecdotal.

And , if you're not a fan of anecdotal comments, while not shoot them all down, such as



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm 68 and find 3D very appealing. But maybe you're, like, about 92, and would put me among the youngsters.


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WorldCup2010ESPN* /forum/post/18654914
> 
> 
> hmmmm I see, i remember reading articles that did mention that ESPN 3D will use 720p. I can look again but good point though, i guess they ought to make it best and smoothest content for all the money they are throwing in for 3D, i think they will use 720p. How did they broadcast the Masters? I really didn't follow that one at all to be honest.



The 3D Masters was produced by ESPN, Sony, IBM, and Comcast. The format was 1080i Side-by-Side, and I would guess that's what the full time ESPN 3D channel will use.


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18655689
> 
> 
> You've been watching stereo for a long time. Isn't that anecdotal.
> 
> And , if you're not a fan of anecdotal comments, while not shoot them all down, such as
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm 68 and find 3D very appealing. But maybe you're, like, about 92, and would put me among the youngsters.
Click to expand...


I threw in my own experience to show it has no real meaning, as any single experience does not.


What does have meaning, is the experience I've had dealing with thousands of 3D end users. What does have meaning is the number (how many?) of 3D gamers and their experiences. What does have meaning is the number (how many?) of educational, medical, manufacturing, energy, research, and other 3D end users, and their experiences.


My point is this: The number of existing 3D users is a lot larger than most readers here are aware of. Experience shows the actual number of 3D viewers that have any problems, discomfort, or other negative reactions is very, very, very small.


----------



## TVOD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken H* /forum/post/18657259
> 
> 
> The 3D Masters was produced by ESPN, Sony, IBM, and Comcast. The format was 1080i Side-by-Side, and I would guess that's what the full time ESPN 3D channel will use.



Good guess, but from this article:


' "ESPN 3D's programming will be based on live field shoots in 720p using a leased 3D production truck such as Supershooter 3D," Chuck Pagano, ESPN's executive vice president said.'


It was also mentioned in AVS in this thread.


Of course plans can change, but given their commitment to 720p it makes sense they would go this route. 2D and 3D signals would be compatible.


1080i makes more sense to me in that if one is already getting decreased vertical resolution on motion, the side by side horizontal resolution loss would be complementary.


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TVOD* /forum/post/18657354
> 
> 
> Good guess, but from this article:
> 
> 
> "ESPN 3D's programming will be based on live field shoots in 720p using a leased 3D production truck such as Supershooter 3D," Chuck Pagano, ESPN's executive vice president said.



I think the article is wrong. We shall see.


----------



## walford

1080i Side-by-side would provide 960x1080 side by side frames at 30fps.

720p Top and bottom would provide 1280x360 frames at 60fps which IMHO is much better for high motion horizontal activity sports.


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *walford* /forum/post/18657485
> 
> 
> 1080i Side-by-side would provide 960x1080 side by side frames at 30fps.
> 
> 720p Top and bottom would provide 1280x360 frames at 60fps which IMHO is much better for high motion horizontal activity sports.



They tested both for The Masters broadcast.


----------



## walford

Makes sense to pick 1080i SbS for a Golf match since you what you want is the best possible resolution for all of the scenery and other small items and you don't need to worry about motion blur caused by players walking around the course.


----------



## fire407

The World Cup will be shot at 50 frames per second for the 2D version, so I'm thinking that whatever feed ESPN gets from Europe, it will have to be converted for the frame rate. They will probably use a Snell and Wilcox Alchemist, which is perhaps the best standards converter out there, but there may still be artifacts in doing the frame rate conversion for the 3D feed. I'll be surprised if it looks as good or as smooth as The Masters.


----------



## RobertR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WorldCup2010ESPN* /forum/post/18654967
> 
> 
> TV makers and Satellite providers are not going to gamble or throw millions/billions of dollars over something they know it will fail.



You use the same strawman argument I responded to before. Exactly where did I say that "it is known that it will fail"? I didn't. What I said is that "throwing millions/billions of dollars" at something doesn't _guarantee_ success. Companies "throw millions/billions of dollars" at something they're not sure will succeed quite often, and the "throwing of millions/billions of dollars" has resulted in failure many times. They're willing to "throw millions/billions of dollars" in the _hope_ that they'll profit from it while at the same time realizing the venture may fail.



> Quote:
> we already know that both of those audios formats have already failed to garner mainstream appeal. They are pure niche products. They were destined for that moniker from the day they were born.



"Destiny" is not the point. The point is that those formats were developed in the hope that they would become mainstream--that they would replace CD. This they failed to do despite having "millions/billions of dollars" thrown at them.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RobertR* /forum/post/18659136
> 
> 
> You use the same strawman argument I responded to before. Exactly where did I say that "it is known that it will fail"? I didn't. What I said is that "throwing millions/billions of dollars" at something doesn't _guarantee_ success. Companies "throw millions/billions of dollars" at something they're not sure will succeed quite often, and the "throwing of millions/billions of dollars" has resulted in failure many times. They're willing to "throw millions/billions of dollars" in the _hope_ that they'll profit from it while at the same time realizing the venture may fail.
> 
> 
> "Destiny" is not the point. The point is that those formats were developed in the hope that they would become mainstream--that they would replace CD. This they failed to do despite having "millions/billions of dollars" thrown at them.



The companies that are going to be spending the billions of dollars are the content producers--movie studios, ESPN, DirecTV, and eventually the broadcast networks(once a ota standard is set). The TV manufacturers don't have to spend much more than what they were anyway. Adding 3D to the sets costs them very little, and I'm sure the markup on the glasses will certainly make them cost effective. Sony, Samsung, LG and Panasonic were going to spend money advertising anyway. Once we had TVs that would do high refresh rates, it was just a matter of putting an input on the TVs for two signals. So on the consumer side, the 3D tech is basically free for these companies. However, Panasonic and Sony in particular make professional equipment such as cameras and switchers, and they equip trucks to originate sporting events, so they are investing heavily in 3D on the production side.


----------



## RobertR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18659344
> 
> 
> The companies that are going to be spending the billions of dollars are the content producers



They're still subject to the same risks and uncertainties.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RobertR* /forum/post/18659136
> 
> 
> You use the same strawman argument I responded to before. Exactly where did I say that "it is known that it will fail"? I didn't. What I said is that "throwing millions/billions of dollars" at something doesn't _guarantee_ success. Companies "throw millions/billions of dollars" at something they're not sure will succeed quite often, and the "throwing of millions/billions of dollars" has resulted in failure many times. They're willing to "throw millions/billions of dollars" in the _hope_ that they'll profit from it while at the same time realizing the venture may fail.
> 
> 
> "Destiny" is not the point. The point is that those formats were developed in the hope that they would become mainstream--that they would replace CD. This they failed to do despite having "millions/billions of dollars" thrown at them.







I don't know but obviously you don't understand how technology world really work. Sometimes these TV makers and others that are in involve with the project are able to force consumers to make purchase they may not necessary like to do, Ok i must admit they sometimes able to do that but usually they wait to get every bit of money back and perhaps look forward with anything new and that 3D plan is bigger than you think, much more serious than 20 years ago, the tools and the content, support will be there and that could be more than enough.


----------



## fire407

What's really going to piss the haters off the most is when people are talking about how cool the 3D effect is. I guess they'll have to jump in on conversations and keep saying "it's not cool, it's a gimmick, it's a fad, you're being manipulated, you don't know have any taste, etc" and meanwhile people will continue to watch 3D and think that it's pretty cool.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RobertR* /forum/post/18659360
> 
> 
> They're still subject to the same risks and uncertainties.






This is a real proof that shows you really have no clue about the whole 3D deal. You can use a better argument perhaps that 3D may not be successful due the cost of 3D Glasses and the inconvenience.





Lets be realistic here. 3D will be big if enough billions spent at the right way, All 3D need is a lot of content, which you obviously making the mistake that judging 3D without EVEN seeing any content to give it any justice but anyways and with what we know, beginning in June for first time we are going to see 3D channels that has been confirmed they will full time later, but for the time being would be part time, such as ESPN 3D channel.





3D needs a friendly convenience for people for their use to 3D sets, which include watching 3D without any glasses and much importantly for 3D to be viewable with full resolution without any loss. I can vision this will happen, but it will take time, Several years if not more, but they are moving fast in technology so perhaps they may only take few years to master a FULL 3D Sets which by the way will make 2D viewing perfect simultaneously!!


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18660175
> 
> 
> What's really going to piss the haters off the most is when people are talking about how cool the 3D effect is. I guess they'll have to jump in on conversations and keep saying "it's not cool, it's a gimmick, it's a fad, you're being manipulated, you don't know have any taste, etc" and meanwhile people will continue to watch 3D and think that it's pretty cool.






Exactly! I guess those 3D haters think they may have some sort of magic to throw some people off about 3D. But by the end of the day people make what they want and get what they feel best. I am still going to get my 3D ready set







I love features. I actually love the fact 3D capability improves 2D picture quality, its not like it degrades the picture so i don't see how 3D feature can be bad.


----------



## RobertR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WorldCup2010ESPN* /forum/post/18660152
> 
> 
> I must admit they *sometimes* able to do that.....that *could be* more than enough.



Sometimes...could be...sounds like you don't really disagree with me.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RobertR* /forum/post/18659360
> 
> 
> They're still subject to the same risks and uncertainties.



The slow rollout of 3D is causing a huge amount of controversy here. At the April 2009 NAB, Panasonic was showing a plasma with 3D technology. They had a Blu-ray player sitting with the demo, but the tech guys admitted that the 3D source material was coming off of a server in the back. They just wanted everyone to know that they were going to have a 3D Blu-ray player available someday. The 3D demo looked great. Every tech guy and Panasonic rep I talked to indicated that it would be at least 2 or 3 years before they would offer 3D to the consumer. I even bought a TV last summer thinking that 3D could be 3 years away. Then, as a surprise to everyone, Panasonic, Samsung, and Sony all announced in the fall that they would be showing 3D TVs at CES. I went to CES, and they not only had TVs, but they had FULL RESOLUTION 3D Blu-ray players. I was shocked that they sprung this on us so quickly. So were the projector manufacturers. They were all caught with their pants down. JVC was showing their latest projectors, but they were all 2D except for the 4K expensive version. I'm guessing now that one company was going to announce, so they all did, and they got DirecTV on board with their channels---DirecTV had a live channel on at the Panasonic and Sony booths at CES and it looked good. Perhaps they should have waited a year, mastered a lot of 3D Blu-rays, and actually had the channels available before launching the sets. Then, a lot of the negative responses on this forum would have been addressed---mainly that there is little or no content today. Also, there wouldn't be so many poor demonstrations in the stores.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RobertR* /forum/post/18660290
> 
> 
> Sometimes...could be...sounds like you don't really disagree with me.





You misunderstand. TV producers/TV makers etc... may shock the world and make full 3D TVs sets much quicker, make it standard and fix all the problems if they really want to. Remember we are the consumers, we use what is made for us. Consumers have the power to decide which TV manufacture is better/like than the other by determine their sales, consumers effect the profit sure but if all you see full 3D TVs and they stop doing 2D TV. Will you ever upgrade your TV, or will you forced to buy the full 3D TV anyway because that's the only thing you can get? That's my point they have this deciding factor. The real concern whether this is ethical or not, If choices are not given, people may feel it is right or wrong, but that is a topic for another day.




Actually if 3D Takes off which i think it will! We may see the warning sign for the Standard definition format to be no longer exist! believe it or not. I mean you could vision by seeing only 2D and 3D Blu rays comes out and somewhat channels that broadcast in 2D no longer does that and the idea maybe to clear costs and to increase 3D channels and 2D HD. Which this means, we will for sure have all the complete High Definition channels whether it is Cable or Satellite with great chances improved quality and absolutely full time HD in all channels equally! but then again we will go back to not many channels not in 3D HD yet but that to be expected i guess. I don't know, i think people ought to be in favor for 3D for the own good for HD benefits anyway!





There are articles online that already mentioning new race between DirectTV/Dish Network vs Cable (Comcast) for 3D channels so this may indicate that the 3D channels are here to stay and newer cycle for 3D HD. Someone must wonder if DVDs or SD in general in their way out in the next couple years, maybe it will take longer but the idea they maybe in their out!


----------



## tvine2000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RobertR* /forum/post/18654531
> 
> 
> Why would you hope to hear me say I was wrong about something I never said (namely, that it will fail)? If you _carefully_ read what I said, you'd realize that my posts were in response to your breathless comparison to technologies that succeeded in spite of predictions of failure, and ballyhooing all the money being spent on 3D. I pointed out that the logic of the posts does NOTHING to prove that 3D WILL succeed. Your conclusion that such a statement amounts to a "prediction" is faulty.



No you didn't come right out and say that.but thats the way your posts read.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18660444
> 
> 
> The slow rollout of 3D is causing a huge amount of controversy here. At the April 2009 NAB, Panasonic was showing a plasma with 3D technology. They had a Blu-ray player sitting with the demo, but the tech guys admitted that the 3D source material was coming off of a server in the back. They just wanted everyone to know that they were going to have a 3D Blu-ray player available someday. The 3D demo looked great. Every tech guy and Panasonic rep I talked to indicated that it would be at least 2 or 3 years before they would offer 3D to the consumer. I even bought a TV last summer thinking that 3D could be 3 years away. Then, as a surprise to everyone, Panasonic, Samsung, and Sony all announced in the fall that they would be showing 3D TVs at CES. I went to CES, and they not only had TVs, but they had FULL RESOLUTION 3D Blu-ray players. I was shocked that they sprung this on us so quickly. So were the projector manufacturers. They were all caught with their pants down. JVC was showing their latest projectors, but they were all 2D except for the 4K expensive version. I'm guessing now that one company was going to announce, so they all did, and they got DirecTV on board with their channels---DirecTV had a live channel on at the Panasonic and Sony booths at CES and it looked good. Perhaps they should have waited a year, mastered a lot of 3D Blu-rays, and actually had the channels available before launching the sets. Then, a lot of the negative responses on this forum would have been addressed---mainly that there is little or no content today. Also, there wouldn't be so many poor demonstrations in the stores.






haha whats interesting about your post though that its not really the fact 3D came a bit early than expected. The problem is you will always get some people complaining, even if 3D were pushed later, people will still criticize anything that is new to them because they are familiar to the older tech and feel very comfortable with it and they may have not familiar or feel not comfortable with that anything that is new to them. Didn't Blu ray get some criticize, HD etc? Of course they did whether the quality wasn't top notice when Blu rays were in first production and oh my lord serious attack on the cost of the blu ray players too and how buggy they really were.






Your posts proves that 3D came earlier than it should but didn't that proof my point that TV makers/Producers have that will/power and they sure are doing that right now! They get everyone involve, DirectTV, Comcast and also Dish Network.. Who would imagine DirectTV will even consider getting any of 3D channels this year or even more interesting for cable (we acknowledge the 3D bandwidth possibilities), we could have expected maybe by the end of next year... things moving very fast. This could potentially be all in favor for 3D due to the fact everyone is involved, i must admit 3D blu rays also coming quicker too on some movies to come. SAW 7 for instance will be on 3D blu ray. The idea they are getting in business to get more content, main while they will be working to make 3D more efficient by the next years. (But again, this is all beginning from June 11, stay tune for ads and more serious movement right before or after that day)


----------



## mzpro5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WorldCup2010ESPN* /forum/post/18660556
> 
> 
> 
> SAW 7 for instance will be on 3D blu ray.





Ahh yes it is quality content like this that will assure 3D in everyone's home.


----------



## buzzard767




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mzpro5* /forum/post/18661436
> 
> 
> Ahh yes it is quality content like this that will assure 3D in everyone's home.




lolololololololol










Content. We need content.


----------



## gc8710




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18660175
> 
> 
> What's really going to piss the haters off the most is when people are talking about how cool the 3D effect is. I guess they'll have to jump in on conversations and keep saying "it's not cool, it's a gimmick, it's a fad, you're being manipulated, you don't know have any taste, etc" and meanwhile people will continue to watch 3D and think that it's pretty cool.



This statement is flawed. It places a negative connotation on those comments which are against 3D.Calling these posters as "haters" is incorrect.

In fact both pro 3D and con 3D comments should be considered to be of equal value.

This subject matter is still open for discussion and debate and placing labels on participants is extremely biased.


----------



## mzpro5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18662100
> 
> 
> This statement is flawed. It places a negative connotation on those comments which are against 3D.Calling these posters as "haters" is incorrect.
> 
> In fact both pro 3D and con 3D comments should be considered to be of equal value.
> 
> This subject matter is still open for discussion and debate and placing labels on participants is extremely biased.



I agree with you. I don't "hate" 3D - I just don't think it is going to be the next big thing for the majority of house holds. I could be wrong but I don't see the purpose in labeling people who question whether this is the next best thing since toilet paper.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18662100
> 
> 
> This statement is flawed. It places a negative connotation on those comments which are against 3D.Calling these posters as "haters" is incorrect.
> 
> In fact both pro 3D and con 3D comments should be considered to be of equal value.
> 
> This subject matter is still open for discussion and debate and placing labels on participants is extremely biased.



Just read some of the negative comments and you will see that some people are haters. MOST of the people here are pretty agnostic when it comes to 3D. While you post that both opinions should be given "equal value", the designs of each side are different. Some people that are against it DON'T EVEN WANT IT TO EXIST, and THAT WOULD KEEP ME and others FROM ENJOYING IT. On the other hand the people for it know that is only an OPTION that NEVER HAS TO BE USED. In other words, even when you own a 3D TV, YOU NEVER HAVE TO WATCH 3D ON IT if you don't want to. I know that I'll still watch 2D the vast majority of the time when I get my 3D TV, but when I do want to watch a movie or sports event in 3D, I should have that option as well. Some people here don't think I should have that option.


----------



## Rammitinski

Not true. Chill out.


I don't recall anyone here ever saying that they want to "deprive anyone of their personal right to enjoy 3D".


Also, you should know that the more you inappropriately call someone a "hater" when it's not true, the more likely you're going to make them have antagonistic feelings towards you, yourself.


I think that's something that people that overuse that word these days need to learn if they want to get anywhere in their disagreements.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rammitinski* /forum/post/18664747
> 
> 
> Not true. Chill out.
> 
> 
> I don't recall anyone here ever saying that they want to "deprive anyone of their personal right to enjoy 3D".
> 
> 
> Also, you should know that the more you inappropriately call someone a "hater" when it's not true, the more you're likely to make that reality come true, at least as far as their feelings towards you, yourself.



Perhaps "hater" is too loaded of a word, but you have to admit that there are some people here that absolutely "hate" this new version of 3D TV. There are people that definitely want it to go away, and if they had their way they would "deprive" me. I would never be in favor of forcing someone to watch 3D if they didn't want to. But I do think that a lot of people on this forum are going to be surprised at how many people do want it. Just look at the threads about the older Samsung DLP sets and you will see that there is a demand for Samsung to make a converter.


----------



## Lee Stewart

My experience here at 3D Central and other 3D/HD related Forums, leads me to believe there are three kinds of people that post on these forums:


1. This is really great! I want one. I am going to buy one this year.


2. This is an interesting tech for the home. And when it's time to buy a new HDTV, I will probably get one that has the 3D feature.


3. The CEMs are forcing this tech on us. You still have to wear glasses only now they cost $200 a pair. It is a niche product and will either fail or never get out of niche status. They are ripping us off at the theaters. It's a fad that has come and gone and come - it will soon be gone.


----------



## gc8710

All the comments here discussing the technology involved are certainly interesting reading.

The important issue of practicality seems to be lacking. I have a practicality question,just how kid proof are these rather expensive glasses going to be? Plus, how many is Dad going to have to pick up along with the TV to be sure that little Tommy and Sue can invite all their friends over to see the latest 3D cartoon release without a hugh brouhaha breaking out among the youngsters? It's going to happen in a lot of families who didn't exactly think through on their purchase last Christmas.


----------



## tvine2000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18665417
> 
> 
> My experience here at 3D Central and other 3D/HD related Forums, leads me to believe there are three kinds of people that post on these forums:
> 
> 
> 1. This is really great! I want one. I am going to buy one this year.
> 
> 
> 2. This is an interesting tech for the home. And when it's time to buy a new HDTV, I will probably get one that has the 3D feature.
> 
> 
> 3. The CEMs are forcing this tech on us. You still have to wear glasses only now they cost $200 a pair. It is a niche product and will either fail or never get out of niche status. They are ripping us off at the theaters. It's a fad that has come and gone and come - it will soon be gone.



Right LEE and didn't we hear this before during the format war.then after blu-ray won.Then after....you know what i mean. Seems like there always 3 kind of people,just a different new technology.If you were to ask me today ,right ,now how 3d is doing,i'd say lookin good,if you were to ask me.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mzpro5* /forum/post/18661436
> 
> 
> Ahh yes it is quality content like this that will assure 3D in everyone's home.





haha, well of course they are spending money for 3D, content will be there i am sure. I was totally shocked earlier this year to see announcement about the SAW 7 will be in 3D at least and worst case scenario in Theatre but i was also told to bet my house on it that it will come in 3D blu ray and the reason is the movie should release around Jan/Feb of 2011 when some 3D blu ray will come along too.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18662100
> 
> 
> This statement is flawed. It places a negative connotation on those comments which are against 3D.Calling these posters as "haters" is incorrect.
> 
> In fact both pro 3D and con 3D comments should be considered to be of equal value.
> 
> This subject matter is still open for discussion and debate and placing labels on participants is extremely biased.






The statement is absolutely valid and i do agree with him. When people attack 3D or any new technology for that matter should wait for CONTENT first to give a proper judgment but you see all the negativity over 3D without people even seeing the 3D content and have very small clues about it. It's pathetic for anyone to give any opinion about any tech unless you SEE it first.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mzpro5* /forum/post/18662315
> 
> 
> I agree with you. I don't "hate" 3D - I just don't think it is going to be the next big thing for the majority of house holds. I could be wrong but I don't see the purpose in labeling people who question whether this is the next best thing since toilet paper.






Again, as i said above. You can't even be negative about it, unless you see the content first. Some really like/in favor for 3D because it doesn't have any drawback in 2D TV set. Meaning, 3D Ready feature does improve the 2D picture quality and you can view 3D content once in a while or when you want in the same TV. You can have a 3D Ready TV and never use 3D feature at all, just like there is internet connection that have netflix streaming for all the TVs now but some may never ever use that feature. I actually can't believe how can anyone attack bonus feature. IF 3D were to replace 2D sets then we have a problem, but is that the case now?


----------



## Augerhandle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18664835
> 
> 
> Perhaps "hater" is too loaded of a word...(snip)




According to my son, "hater" is today's slang for _one who disagrees, doubts, or disapproves_. http://onlineslangdictionary.com/definition+of/hater 


It is used in a jovial manner "don't be a hater", as in "give me a chance to explain myself" or "let's agree to disagree" and is usually meant to defuse an argument that is getting out of hand.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN

Oh my lord! I am mad now!!! grr World cup in 2022 (2023 i think official year)


might be in 3D Holography now that is something. Way too early but i come across that article maybe it might be a nice read for some


----------



## gc8710




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WorldCup2010ESPN* /forum/post/18665643
> 
> 
> The statement is absolutely valid and i do agree with him. When people attack 3D or any new technology for that matter should wait for CONTENT first to give a proper judgment but you see all the negativity over 3D without people even seeing the 3D content and have very small clues about it. It's pathetic for anyone to give any opinion about any tech unless you SEE it first.



You are confused about the very nature of this thread and the thoughts behind comments of those who think that , and I quote from title of thread,"3D HDTV is the most pointless mainstream technology ever." It does not say"3D is a flawed and non effective technology.

I personally think it is very effective in achieving it's desired optical illusion.I also think it is not a viable and practical advancement in home entertainment technology for mainstream consumers.There will always be hobbyists and Home Theater enthusiasts who will find 3D appealing.That also is not the discussion which is intended for this thread.This statement does not apply to it's viability in public 3D equipped theaters.Those offer an interesting viewing experience to it's customers. It is not a discussion about the effectiveness of the technology.You have to look elsewhere for that thread.


----------



## tvine2000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18665539
> 
> 
> All the comments here discussing the technology involved are certainly interesting reading.
> 
> The important issue of practicality seems to be lacking. I have a practicality question,just how kid proof are these rather expensive glasses going to be? Plus, how many is Dad going to have to pick up along with the TV to be sure that little Tommy and Sue can invite all their friends over to see the latest 3D cartoon release without a hugh brouhaha breaking out among the youngsters? It's going to happen in a lot of families who didn't exactly think through on their purchase last Christmas.



So, this is why 3d won't be sucessful? Any practical parent won't let any kid with in 2 ft of these glasses.Or theres a thing called rules for a child.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18665807
> 
> 
> You are confused about the very nature of this thread and the thoughts behind comments of those who think that , and I quote from title of thread,"3D HDTV is the most pointless mainstream technology ever." It does not say"3D is a flawed and non effective technology.
> 
> I personally think it is very effective in achieving it's desired optical illusion.I also think it is not a viable and practical advancement in home entertainment technology for *mainstream consumers*.There will always be hobbyists and Home Theater enthusiasts who will find 3D appealing.That also is not the discussion which is intended for this thread.This statement does not apply to it's viability in public 3D equipped theaters.Those offer an interesting viewing experience to it's customers. It is not a discussion about the effectiveness of the technology.You have to look elsewhere for that thread.



Define "*mainstream consumers*." Exactly what % of all USA households does that catch-phrase represent?


----------



## tvine2000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18665807
> 
> 
> You are confused about the very nature of this thread and the thoughts behind comments of those who think that , and I quote from title of thread,"3D HDTV is the most pointless mainstream technology ever." It does not say"3D is a flawed and non effective technology.
> 
> I personally think it is very effective in achieving it's desired optical illusion.I also think it is not a viable and practical advancement in home entertainment technology for mainstream consumers.There will always be hobbyists and Home Theater enthusiasts who will find 3D appealing.That also is not the discussion which is intended for this thread.This statement does not apply to it's viability in public 3D equipped theaters.Those offer an interesting viewing experience to it's customers. It is not a discussion about the effectiveness of the technology.You have to look elsewhere for that thread.



Theres that word again''PRACTICAL''! ?,Does every technology have to be practical. Theres and old saying''ONES MAN CEILING IS ANOTHER MANS FLOOR.Not everything technology is practical in fact most of this stuff is just grown up boys toys! But boy i love it.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18665807
> 
> 
> You are confused about the very nature of this thread and the thoughts behind comments of those who think that , and I quote from title of thread,"3D HDTV is the most pointless mainstream technology ever." It does not say"3D is a flawed and non effective technology.
> 
> I personally think it is very effective in achieving it's desired optical illusion.I also think it is not a viable and practical advancement in home entertainment technology for mainstream consumers.There will always be hobbyists and Home Theater enthusiasts who will find 3D appealing.That also is not the discussion which is intended for this thread.This statement does not apply to it's viability in public 3D equipped theaters.Those offer an interesting viewing experience to it's customers. It is not a discussion about the effectiveness of the technology.You have to look elsewhere for that thread.







The title of this thread is rather vague. The guy who created this thread based his conclusion by looking at Sony 3D TV display set at Sony freestyle store which it happens to be 2D to 3D conversation because the 3D demo disc that was playing was under ps3 player before the update. So because he doesn't realize that what he is seeing is only 2D to 3D conversation and not the real 3D material.





And Which 3D HDTV are we talking about here? As far as i know this is only 3D ready TV. We don't have any FULL 3D TV as of yet. This is all going back to the older HDTV Ready TVs that was around in the past.





Im not sure what are you even trying to tell us here, I still can't believe we can't wait to check how 3D push will turn out into. *patience a virtue*.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN

LOL! I just noticed i forgot to post the link about the 3D holographic . Nice read. http://www.televisionbroadcast.com/article/100984


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WorldCup2010ESPN* /forum/post/18665643
> 
> 
> The statement is absolutely valid and i do agree with him. When people attack 3D or any new technology for that matter should wait for CONTENT first to give a proper judgment but you see all the negativity over 3D without people even seeing the 3D content and have very small clues about it. It's pathetic for anyone to give any opinion about any tech unless you SEE it first.



Yeah, but!

The 3rd category of poster that Lee defined doesn't even need to see it before making their wild rants - it's all a big conspiracy of the manufacturers and WE WON"T BUY INTO IT. They are uniquely capable of speaking for mainstream consumers, who just _happen_ to share _all_ their views and they therefore think category 1 and 2 must be stupid and don't represent anything more than 0.01% of the population anyway.


----------



## gc8710




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tvine2000* /forum/post/18665906
> 
> 
> So, this is why 3d won't be sucessful? Any practical parent won't let any kid with in 2 ft of these glasses.Or theres a thing called rules for a child.



The main point is that these glasses present an added expense in proportion to the number of people in the family. A far as I can remember,this poses a unique challenge for the manufacturer's marketing people to address in their attempts to sell these systems.

Until the cost of these glasses comes down, this will be a huge speed bump for this technology to overcome.


----------



## mzpro5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AJSJones* /forum/post/18666069
> 
> 
> Yeah, but!
> 
> The 3rd category of poster that Lee defined doesn't even need to see it before making their wild rants - it's all a big conspiracy of the manufacturers and WE WON"T BUY INTO IT. They are uniquely capable of speaking for mainstream consumers, who just _happen_ to share _all_ their views and they therefore think category 1 and 2 must be stupid and don't represent anything more than 0.01% of the population anyway.



If anything it is the proponents of in home 3D that are taking the aggressive stance on this thread.


Those of us that express doubt about its growth and acceptance are labeled as Neanderthals, Luddites or victims of Alzheimer's because we are not ready to jump on the band wagon.


I'm willing to just sit back for a year or so and see how this all shakes down. I'm very willing to admit I am wrong if that ends up being the case.


----------



## pmreedjr

I like a good 3D presentation; I like it very much!! I want it in my home and the glasses are not a deterrent to me. None of the naysayers have advanced an argument that would make me reconsider my position. The electronics industry is not manipulating me; they're offering me a fantastic step forward in display technology, one I will certainly take advantage of. Will I be one of a very few? Maybe for the first year or two, but after that it will become more and more common to find 3D tech catching on. The silliness about,"My kids and their friends will break my expensive glasses!" is a specious argument. Give'em a good 2D presentation. My granddaughter, who will be 4 years old when I adopt this tech, won't be allowed within 10 feet of my ASG. I know content will be initially limited; so what? It'll come! Don't want it, can't see it, too expensive.....that's your problem/choice. I choose to buy in.


----------



## R Johnson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18665417
> 
> 
> My experience here at 3D Central and other 3D/HD related Forums, leads me to believe there are three kinds of people that post on these forums:



Perhaps there's a fourth: Those who are getting rather tired of the 3D hype and promotion.


----------



## scarabaeus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WorldCup2010ESPN* /forum/post/18665995
> 
> 
> LOL! I just noticed i forgot to post the link about the 3D holographic . Nice read. http://www.televisionbroadcast.com/article/100984



Only it's not "holographic". It's multiple view photography (as opposed to stereoscopic 3D, which is dual view photography). Holographic would be the kind where you use light interference of single-frequency light, e.g. from lasers, and record them onto extremely high-resolution film.


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mzpro5* /forum/post/18667187
> 
> 
> If anything it is the proponents of in home 3D that are taking the aggressive stance on this thread.
> 
> 
> Those of us that express doubt about its growth and acceptance are labeled as Neanderthals, Luddites or victims of Alzheimer's because we are not ready to jump on the band wagon.
> 
> 
> I'm willing to just sit back for a year or so and see how this all shakes down. I'm very willing to admit I am wrong if that ends up being the case.



That view eliminates you from Category 3 and puts you pretty squarely in the 2b category - wait and see what it's like, rather than committing now. (2a is wait and see but probably will) Maybe you will maybe you won't. One can rationally express doubt about that until there is experience (personal and market) but that is not what category 3 is about.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Johnson* /forum/post/18668962
> 
> 
> Perhaps there's a fourth: Those who are getting rather tired of the 3D hype and promotion.



Are you kidding me? There's only a sporatic amount of commercials from Samsung and LG, and Panasonic. Most people don't have a clue yet about the new 3D. If you go into Best Buy, you actually have to have someone steer you over to it to find it. BUT THAT'S ABOUT TO CHANGE. DirecTV is launching their 3D channels, and Sony will have their TVs out. GET READY FOR IT.


----------



## Lumpy

Just what I was thinking. 3D has barely started being promoted. Just wait, even pro-3d folks will be sick of the hype soon enough.


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Johnson* /forum/post/18668962
> 
> 
> Perhaps there's a fourth: Those who are getting rather tired of the 3D hype and promotion.



That's probably not entirely "the real truth" . . . as I posted earlier:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/18612912
> 
> _Today's epiphany:_ It seems pretty clear [_to me at least!_] that we are still in the *'Very, Very Early Adopter Phase'* of home 3DTV [_as I know no one who owns any 3D equipment yet._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ] But while posters on this forum might agree with me on that point, I'm not sure how many would agree about where we are in the *Gartner Hype Cycle* ...?! [There is a *graphic* of the *Gartner Hype Cycle* on this interesting *Ofcom webpage* .]
> 
> 
> I would have said that we were still in (or perhaps just out of) the *'Technology Trigger Phase'* of the *Gartner Hype Cycle*, but that we had not yet reached anywhere near the *'Peak of Inflated Expectations'* . . . but some posters sound more like they think we are already in the *'Trough of Disillusionment'*...?
> 
> _So I guess it's little wonder we don't seem to be able to reach any kind of consensus...?!_



Those who claim *already* to be "tired of the hype" just walk to a different, inappropriately(?) faster, and perhaps somewhat naive "drummer". It's likely we will all suffer the 'over hyped 3D' condition for at least a short time, as 3D struggles to move from '*promises to be great*' into '*is a moderate/significant advance*' (or possibly _crashes and burns!_) Let's just hope that (for the rest of us) the *'Trough of Disillusionment'* is _short and shallow!_


----------



## tvine2000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18667163
> 
> 
> The main point is that these glasses present an added expense in proportion to the number of people in the family. A far as I can remember,this poses a unique challenge for the manufacturer's marketing people to address in their attempts to sell these systems.
> 
> Until the cost of these glasses comes down, this will be a huge speed bump for this technology to overcome.



I think everyone will agree with you.But it is true that every new technology costs way to much money.The glasses cost way to much money,but you know if 3d takes off the glasses will come down.Isn't there always a speed bump with new technology?


As far as kids go,i don't think there really interested in 3d like us big kids.


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18665807
> 
> 
> You are confused about the very nature of this thread and the thoughts behind comments of those who think that , and I quote from title of thread,"3D HDTV is the most pointless mainstream technology ever." It does not say"3D is a flawed and non effective technology.
> 
> I personally think it is very effective in achieving it's desired optical illusion.I also think it is not a viable and practical advancement in home entertainment technology for mainstream consumers.There will always be hobbyists and Home Theater enthusiasts who will find 3D appealing.That also is not the discussion which is intended for this thread.This statement does not apply to it's viability in public 3D equipped theaters.Those offer an interesting viewing experience to it's customers. It is not a discussion about the effectiveness of the technology.You have to look elsewhere for that thread.



The underlying assumption is if the technology is effective, it will be successful.


----------



## mzpro5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken H* /forum/post/18671262
> 
> 
> The underlying assumption is if the technology is effective, it will be successful.



I'm not sure what your definition of "effective" is but I would postulate that:


Betamax - very effective better than VHS - failed

Minidisc - effective - failed

HDDVD - effective - failed


Just 3 examples. It takes more than being "effective" to become successful. Acceptance by the MAINSTREAM consumer is needed for something to become successful in today's market place.


----------



## mzpro5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AJSJones* /forum/post/18669256
> 
> 
> That view eliminates you from Category 3 and puts you pretty squarely in the 2b category - wait and see what it's like, rather than committing now. (2a is wait and see but probably will) Maybe you will maybe you won't. One can rationally express doubt about that until there is experience (personal and market) but that is not what category 3 is about.



Gee I can sleep better now knowing I have a place in some completely made up erroneous categorization of people you don't know.


----------



## gc8710




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken H* /forum/post/18671262
> 
> 
> The underlying assumption is if the technology is effective, it will be successful.



So cost doesn't matter? Success is just a matter of effectiveness. Now that is really simplifying the discussion a lot.

A lot of comments here, including this one, seem to be missing something.

They should begin with one of the following,

"I think that..."

It is my opinion...."

"The way I see it".


I say this because the subject matter discussed on this thread does not lend itself to scientifically provable answers.


----------



## cneely8




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18672143
> 
> 
> They should begin with one of the following,
> 
> "I think that..."
> 
> It is my opinion...."
> 
> "The way I see it".
> 
> 
> I say this because the subject matter discussed on this thread does not lend itself to scientifically provable answers.



+1. Here comes my opinion...


I have done some searching around the net because of the symptoms I had with very limited 3d exposure (and I ride roller coasters, had no trouble with the "old" 3d, don't get car sick or air sick ,and can do 3d at theme parks). What I found interesting is that _outside of avsforum I didn't even see the 30% in favor view that we see here when I read the comments sections- it is more like 10-15%.


Those comments on those articles are clearly NOT random, since most poeple finding them are probably people who had symptoms, but still - get out side of avsforum (and similar forums) and away from those financially invested in 3d like TV and film companies, and it doesn't seem to find the rabid support even here among the 30% faithful.


Remembering how many people in america don't even have HDTV yet, and that HDTV isn't even full HDTV, and that way too much content even on HD channels is still 4:3, I wouldn't be surprised to see this end up as a successful niche product, like SACD. But don't expect that we'll see this becoming widespread like SD DVD did. Cost, practicality, and the fact that joe public is still woefully behind our current "next thing" could relegate this to "real" HTs and folks with money to burn (because smaller market leads to higher prices).


HD is way more impactful than 3d, and people don't even care that much about that yet - anybody have the penetration figures on HDTV's being run as HDTV's in homes? (My aunt runs hers with SD material, and my parents did for a long time too)._


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Johnson* /forum/post/18668962
> 
> 
> Perhaps there's a fourth: Those who are getting rather tired of the 3D hype and promotion.



By who? The CEMs? What do you expect? It is a new tech being offerred to consumers. Were you tired of the hype and promotion of HDM when it arrived in 2006?


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mzpro5* /forum/post/18671864
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your definition of "effective" is but I would postulate that:
> 
> 
> Betamax - very effective better than VHS - failed
> 
> Minidisc - effective - failed
> 
> HDDVD - effective - failed
> 
> 
> Just 3 examples. It takes more than being "effective" to become successful. Acceptance by the MAINSTREAM consumer is needed for something to become successful in today's market place.



Sorry - those are three examples of formats launched by a single company. 3D is an industry effort with hundreds of companies involved.


And OBTW - Betamax only failed as a CONSUMER format. It went on to be HUGELY successful as a professional video format and has allowed Sony to dominate the Pro and Broadcast industry.


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mzpro5* /forum/post/18672080
> 
> 
> Gee I can sleep better now knowing I have a place in some completely made up erroneous categorization of people you don't know.



I'm glad for you. I never lost any sleep either over being told by people that spoke for everyone (they didn't know either) that this whole thing was stupid, would fail and was a conspiracy etc. before they had any experience with what they were predicting. You put yourself in the category of people who _would_ wait until they had experience before making a judgment - or was that the wrong inference from your posts?


> Quote:
> I'm willing to just sit back for a year or so and see how this all shakes down. I'm very willing to admit I am wrong if that ends up being the case.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18672143
> 
> 
> the subject matter discussed on this thread does not lend itself to scientifically provable answers.



NOT NOW, but it will. You guys seem to ignore the fact that this is NEW. It's so new it hasn't even begun. THERE ARE NO 3D CHANNELS YET, THERE'S ONLY ONE 3D BLU-RAY MOVIE, PANASONIC and SAMSUNG ARE THE ONLY ONE'S SELLING 3D TVS(not counting the Mitsubishi DLPS since there not totally the new tech with full resolution). A month from now we will have a clearer picture. There will be channels, and Sony and LG and Toshiba will have 3D TVs available. In less than a year Vizio and other budget manufacturers will have 3D TVs out, and there will be a lot more projector options as well. People are arguing all of the negative points now before most of the pieces are in place--so it's almost totally out of ignorance. For example there's a huge amount of people here that still think that there are no standards--wow! Just know that ANY brand of TV that you buy with the new tech will let you watch 3D Blu-rays no matter what brand of 3D Blu-ray player you have. ANY 3D channels from DirecTV, Comcast and other providers can be watched on ANY 3D TV. That sounds like STANDARDS to me. Just because the glasses aren't standardized doesn't mean that there are no standards, and even the glasses ALL WORK THE SAME WAY. My guess is that someday you will be able to enter a code in the glasses from one company to tell it what brand of TV you want it to work with---kind of like the way you can have infrared codes for a Sony Blu-ray player to work with a Pansonic remote. Then glasses would be portable and easily offered by third party companies which would certainly drive the price down.


----------



## DavidinCT

Personally I agree. I think it is something just to promote new TVs. HD is nothing new to the A/V market, so they needed to think of something that will sell new gear.


Gee wiz, That HDTV and blu-ray player people got last year is worthless because it can't play 3-D....come on give me a break.


3-D in the home is pointless till it can be done with out having to buy a $100 pair of glasses. Where is the content anyway ? Oh, a few titles..YEA !!!! I'm going to run out to blow $2500-4000 on a new TV/blu-ray player to watch 2-3 titles of a format that won't really make it.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken H* /forum/post/18671262
> 
> 
> The underlying assumption is if the technology is effective, it will be successful.





I agree, his post didn't make too much sense to me actually! don't we see 2D HD Dominance in the market today? with all the HDTV in stores. If 3D technology is effective in next years, all you will see in stores is full 3D set that have ability to to play back 2D HD of course. Would anyone have even a chance to find 2D HD set anymore? Some of you can't be realistic that is for sure.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cneely8* /forum/post/18672516
> 
> 
> +1. Here comes my opinion...
> 
> 
> I have done some searching around the net because of the symptoms I had with very limited 3d exposure (and I ride roller coasters, had no trouble with the "old" 3d, don't get car sick or air sick ,and can do 3d at theme parks). What I found interesting is that _outside of avsforum I didn't even see the 30% in favor view that we see here when I read the comments sections- it is more like 10-15%.
> 
> 
> Those comments on those articles are clearly NOT random, since most poeple finding them are probably people who had symptoms, but still - get out side of avsforum (and similar forums) and away from those financially invested in 3d like TV and film companies, and it doesn't seem to find the rabid support even here among the 30% faithful.
> 
> 
> Remembering how many people in america don't even have HDTV yet, and that HDTV isn't even full HDTV, and that way too much content even on HD channels is still 4:3, I wouldn't be surprised to see this end up as a successful niche product, like SACD. But don't expect that we'll see this becoming widespread like SD DVD did. Cost, practicality, and the fact that joe public is still woefully behind our current "next thing" could relegate this to "real" HTs and folks with money to burn (because smaller market leads to higher prices).
> 
> 
> HD is way more impactful than 3d, and people don't even care that much about that yet - anybody have the penetration figures on HDTV's being run as HDTV's in homes? (My aunt runs hers with SD material, and my parents did for a long time too).
> _


_






percentage of how many people like 3D in avsforum or any forum in the net, doesn't matter much, in fact there were a lot of more dislike and hatred toward HDTV Ready TV in a lot of forums (you can still see the forums if you search online) because mainly they playback SD pretty bad in some sets, that is still present today. What it matters is the millions that upgrade their sets every year or once in a while, how will they react toward new tech like 3D, avsforum is only small percentage of people that share their opinion but they don't necessarily represent 300+ millions population.





TV Makers doesn't based their ideas/plans by looking at the forums, they look at their profit and study the market where it is indeed more important and makes more sense. I can tell you most people use HDTV, at least they own HDTV because they are the dominance TVs in the market, you wouldn't really see any HDTV ready TVs or SDTV flooding around in stores like BestBuy or do you?






I agree with you regarding HD portion that some channels are not even in HD in some providers, lord knows some cable services lacking some HD channels and it depends on your location if you have cable. Same could be said regarding Satellite in a way. Very true about that some HD are not entirely full time HD, which bring in an important question to my mind, if 3D becomes big deal and a standard, wouldn't that make SD go away slowly? and finally we can get simply all HD channels, full time equally and perhaps in better quality and perhaps we may not longer see SD anymore, to clear some bandwidth. Then you could pay only for HD package within Cable/Satellite providers instead of us of course paying for SD when you originally all you watch is HD. Same could be said about blu ray and 3D blu ray, i find it hard to imagine that they release movie in 3 categories, like in 3D, 2D HD and DVD. I take a good guess and say if 3D becomes standard, the SD days will be over, and people that have SDTV or want to watch SD, they sadly will no longer have that option, but that is how technology work sometimes, in no time LCD sets may no longer be exist and they leen toward LED/OLED i guess._


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mzpro5* /forum/post/18671864
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your definition of "effective" is but I would postulate that:
> 
> 
> Betamax - very effective better than VHS - failed
> 
> Minidisc - effective - failed
> 
> HDDVD - effective - failed
> 
> 
> Just 3 examples. It takes more than being "effective" to become successful. Acceptance by the MAINSTREAM consumer is needed for something to become successful in today's market place.





You are indeed missing the point. This is another example that show some people opinion can somewhat be wrong based on their limited knowledge about new Tech. You can give opinion after you see some content, but unfortunately some are not patience to wait to see the actual content, it is already clear in some posts.




let me give you an example here... what does HDDVD represent here for example? Obviously it is part of HD (a way to play HD). HD is *NOT* limited to Blu ray or in the past to HDDVD. High Definition is in different aspect, you can watch Streaming HD, HD feeds from Satellite and cable or blu rays, it doesn't stop in one area. We even have HD in games. IF one material playback fails or fade away, almost always something replaces it fairly quickly HDDVD failed but Blu ray (plays HD) replaced it, and yes these can happens but did it effect HD as mainstream? 3D HD is NOT LIMITED, it will act like HD precisely and will be in different form, from porn, cable/satellite to games to blu rays and we already have proven facts in June we are having first 3D channels feeds and games to be announced soon in 3D and we already hearing about first porn in 3D.


----------



## 8:13

3d tv isn't for reflective display technology it's for direct transmission display technology. Until direct transmission display technology like plasma or OLED with the 3D feature is sold at mass market price 3D tv will not be successful in the market.


There will be excitement but it will die down. I have seen this pattern before with a different product that will go unnamed. Mark my words: direct transmission display technology is the key to 3D tvs success or failure.


----------



## walford

Since the spring of 2007 all TVs sold in the US have to have OTA digtial tuners in them and almost all OTA primary digital sub-channels are broadcast in HD resolutions. Of couse all TVs still have analog tuners so that they can receive an analog OTA channel from those broadcasters that can still tranmit them or from an analog cable channel or from a VCR or video camera.

What it is interestng is that the added cost for a HDTV to support 3D in the future will actually be very little since the only additional hardware cost is for the IR emitter. This is true because within a year or two HDMI 1.4 receiver chips will cost the same as or less then today's HDMI 1.3b receiver chips and the cost of video processing chips required for 3D which all provide better 2D PQ will cost no more then todays 2D video processing chips.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidinCT* /forum/post/18673760
> 
> 
> Personally I agree. I think it is something just to promote new TVs. HD is nothing new to the A/V market, so they needed to think of something that will sell new gear.
> 
> 
> Gee wiz, That HDTV and blu-ray player people got last year is worthless because it can't play 3-D....come on give me a break.
> 
> 
> 3-D in the home is pointless till it can be done with out having to buy a $100 pair of glasses. Where is the content anyway ? Oh, a few titles..YEA !!!! I'm going to run out to blow $2500-4000 on a new TV/blu-ray player to watch 2-3 titles of a format that won't really make it.



Come back and say all that 30 days from now when DirecTV will have already launched (4) 3D channels. You really need to keep up with current events.


Were you one of the naysayers in Q4 1998 when HDTV launched?


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8:13* /forum/post/18674148
> 
> 
> 3d tv isn't for reflective display technology it's for direct transmission display technology. Until direct transmission display technology like plasma or OLED with the 3D feature is sold at mass market price 3D tv will not be successful in the market.
> 
> 
> There will be excitement but it will die down. I have seen this pattern before with a different product that will go unnamed. Mark my words: direct transmission display technology is the key to 3D tvs success or failure.



LOL! OLED is more of a myth than an actual product when it comes to large consumer displays. In fact most of what is happening in OLED has to do with lighting and not displays.


The largest display you can buy TODAY is 15". That isn't even a decent PC sized monitor let alone a TV. And at a ridiculous price of over $2000 . . . .










And both Panasonic and Samsung are selling PDP 3DTVs today.


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cneely8* /forum/post/18672516
> 
> 
> 
> Remembering how many people in america don't even have HDTV yet, and that HDTV isn't even full HDTV,


_Full_ HDTV is a "gimmick" name, part of the conspiracy to make us buy newer models of HDTV, is it not?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cneely8* /forum/post/18672516
> 
> 
> HD is way more impactful than 3d, and people don't even care that much about that yet - anybody have the penetration figures on HDTV's being run as HDTV's in homes? (My aunt runs hers with SD material, and my parents did for a long time too).



They're all probably calling *HD* a







gimmick that'll never catch on







There's a non-trivial fraction of the viewing public that can't tell when it's HD, like there are some who can't see 3D or have side-effects.


----------



## Col. G.

Newbe here---i need some advice here: I cleaned a Real D 3D Z-Screen with a clean microfiber cloth and small amount of Distilled Water. I am now told that this is not only improper, but wrong AND may have ruined the Z-Screen as well.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidinCT* /forum/post/18673760
> 
> 
> Personally I agree. I think it is something just to promote new TVs. HD is nothing new to the A/V market, so they needed to think of something that will sell new gear.
> 
> 
> Gee wiz, That HDTV and blu-ray player people got last year is worthless because it can't play 3-D....come on give me a break.
> 
> 
> 3-D in the home is pointless till it can be done with out having to buy a $100 pair of glasses. Where is the content anyway ? Oh, a few titles..YEA !!!! I'm going to run out to blow $2500-4000 on a new TV/blu-ray player to watch 2-3 titles of a format that won't really make it.






You are actually missing couple important points here! you act like this a true full 3D which is not the case, again the same misunderstanding. Are you buying the TV for the best performance/your best liking for 2D viewing or only mainly for 3D viewing? YOU should be buying the TV for your desires for 2D viewing, if it happens to have 3D feature, that should be nice.




The 2nd point your missing is 2010 TV sets (except for very few sets of course) TV are relatively cheaper than last year at least, yes that does include the 3D Ready TV, they are relatively cheaper. Let's do the math, if you buy one of the Panasonic Plasma 3D ready sets, which appears to have a very nice 2D viewing according to some remains within a good price range. I see two main TV that range in 2,500 or 3,000. Panasonic adding one pair of glasses for free which i think it is extremely good idea, At least you can test it out with yourself and may not be in a totally hurry to get more and once you wait more, the better the chance the price of glasses will be extremely minor thing. So 2,500 for 50 inch plasma with one free glasses, adding possibly 300, 400 dollars for blu ray player (THAT IF YOU DON't HAVE ps3) you are looking at around 2900 - 3000 for a price. You sure can play it smart and wait! You will find out for the price you are not paying anything that expensive, if you were to buy a good LED TV, last year.. you would pay close to 3500 with no 3D feature and no blu ray player. You can also shoot for 54 inch plasma and still range around maybe around 400 extra which would range around 3400 - 3500. By the way Panasonic offering two free 3D blu ray movies for free beginning at the end of May i think, the two movies are not cheap, they could be a good 150 dollars worth (i know its animated once, but they are good for material source and for testing). If you decide to go Samsung LED TV route, there is still offer going to buy samsung blu ray player which is around 300 i think and get two pair of glasses free and one animated 3D blu ray movie for free. So lets say if you decide on C7000 which cost around 3,000 now or 3,500 (C8000) You are ranging between 3,300 - 3,800 which is very nice in terms of value.. You still may end up buying cheaper than last year prices actually but you get 3D blu ray that plays both 3D and 2 Blu ray and of course DVD in better quality and get one or two glasses to get you started and can be smart and wait more time and you will see prices of glasses might go down hell later.






3rd point you missing, im sorry any new technology are expensive when it first gets into the market. It doesn't matter, good, bad... its the nature of anything you buy new. You can't expect to pay less on something new.







Lastly, regarding content. yes, need more content is important. I wouldn't want to watch cartoon in 3D, I will tell you what i suggest others, just wait and see. in June there are 4 channels in 3D. Back in the days when first HDTV ready TVs first came, we even hardly had anything and things were a lot slower. having four 3D channels is a record. Watch for 3D content in blu rays announcement somewhere around summer and before end of the year, SAW 7 might be the big deal one in 2011. You should expect in 2011 for more action in 3D, in regards of 3D Ready sets and more actual content, Just patience is important, just like back in days with HDTV (Ready)




(If 3D fails, then you didn't lose much, you still have blu ray 3D equipment that may give better performance than ordinal 2D blu ray player (perhaps) and you get one or two glasses free, if 3D takes off, then you get yourself a TV set that does something in the future (Future proof)


----------



## R Johnson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Col. G.* /forum/post/18674246
> 
> 
> Newbe here---i need some advice here: I cleaned a Real D 3D Z-Screen with a clean microfiber cloth and small amount of Distilled Water. I am now told that this is not only improper, but wrong AND may have ruined the Z-Screen as well.



1) RTFM. 2) Contact RealD directly.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AJSJones* /forum/post/18674224
> 
> _Full_ HDTV is a "gimmick" name, part of the conspiracy to make us buy newer models of HDTV, is it not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're all probably calling *HD* a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gimmick that'll never catch on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a non-trivial fraction of the viewing public that can't tell when it's HD, like there are some who can't see 3D or have side-effects.







Actually, he does have a good point about the FULL HDTV part. I remember the HDTV Ready sets and trust me they were not anything that convincing at first and yes was after i see HD content on them. If you want to compare HD Ready once to todays HDTV ones. Today sets are much better, way better in fact, now with that in mind, 3D Ready sets are not in an exception here, it will look a lot better in next years.



Honestly, HDTV have a serious drawback to SD viewers and still exist. 3D doesn't have that problem it doesn't effect your viewing experience in HD in fact it will make it better, whether it is Satellite/Cable or Blu ray. FOR THAT REASON Alone i don't think anyone should attack 3D for that reason alone. IF TV manufacture add new features that make your normal viewing worse, this is where it makes sense to attack the tech but if it doesn't, then it is only a good bonus and we should move forward on that.


----------



## Lee Stewart

"Full HD" was a marketing campaign (very successful) used for LCD 1080 displays to one-up PDP's back in 2006 when the first 1920x1080 large LCD HDTVs arrived. At the time - almost all of the PDP's were 720 or 768.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18674366
> 
> 
> "Full HD" was a marketing campaign (very successful) used for LCD 1080 displays to one-up PDP's back in 2006 when the first 1920x1080 large LCD HDTVs arrived. At the time - almost all of the PDP's were 720 or 768.





Yep! with Lee well informative about TVs, he must be thinking to himself and think this 3D must have reminds him about the older transition from SD to HD. Where there were little HD channels to begin with , and the races between Satellite/Cable providers whom will get what channel first in HD, and how the HDTV ready TV really were in first production for first year. All of this sounds and looks the same with 3D now, we are getting new 3D Ready sets, we getting some 3D channels, soon enough more 3D Blu ray, it just look like the same process with the difference that 3D benefits that it is HD itself and doesn't have drawbacks in 2D TV viewing. Also the speed of improvement is going to favor 3D than it were with HDTV in the beginning. We might get more content sooner than we predicting, starting in June with 4 Channels is indeed cool and more later.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WorldCup2010ESPN* /forum/post/18674445
> 
> 
> Yep! with Lee well informative about TVs, he must be thinking to himself and think this 3D must have reminds him about the older transition from SD to HD. Where there were little HD channels to begin with , and the races between Satellite/Cable providers whom will get what channel first in HD, and how the HDTV ready TV really were in first production for first year. All of this sounds and looks the same with 3D now, we are getting new 3D Ready sets, we getting some 3D channels, soon enough more 3D Blu ray, it just look like the same process with the difference that 3D benefits that it is HD itself and doesn't have drawbacks in 2D TV viewing. Also the speed of improvement is going to favor 3D than it were with HDTV in the beginning. We might get more content sooner than we predicting, starting in June with 4 Channels is indeed cool and more later.



LOL! I am old enough (







) to remember the transition from B & W to Color! My grandfather was in the business. And this will make all of you laugh . . .


He was a "reseller" throughout the 1950's up until his death in 1966. He had contacts with the TV CEMs and also with some large retailers like Mont. Wards, J.C. Penny and others. He would contract to buy from say RCA, 50,000 19 inch TV's which he would resell to the retailers as custom TV's for their consumers because they would contract with him to have their brand name put on the TV instead of the CEM.


We had a color TV in our house in 1956 (I was 5 at the time). We didn't buy it, it was a gift from my grandfather. A 1956 21" Color TV costed almost as much as an economy car in 1956.


Anyways, my grandfather maintained that color was a fad and was so expensive it would never catch on. He was a very smart man and a self made millionare at the time of his death


OK - so he wasn't very successful at long term prognostacation.


----------



## TVOD

Color took around 15 years before it really started to become mainstream. In the mid 60s CBS was an all B&W network. Color was very expensive, and the quality was all over the place. Anyone watching TV in that era was routinely exposed to quad tape "banding" and often times poorly registered cameras. Sets were often no where near optimized for proper settings with LOTS of chroma and improper phase being common, not to mention bad convergence. Obviously things improved dramatically to where NTSC made a quite decent image at home, especially after 2d and 3d comb filters became common.


HD was around for nearly two decades before it hit the airwaves in the US. In the early days there wasn't alot of hope that it would amount to much and would eventually fade away due to it's high cost. HD productions were considered experimental. Early HD sets in Japan cost around $30K! Even right up to the point of the analog cutoff, stations often considered the HD feed to be a secondary and a bit of a nuisance. It often wasn't monitored by the stations as many AVS members can recall informing them that something had gone awry.


3D is a different story in that it can be implemented comparatively inexpensively on the consumer's display, and can use existing technology for distribution. It can, however, represent a sizable investment for production. In the chicken and the egg scenario, I think it remains to be seen how committed content providers will be to the extra expense. If consumer display devices come with 3D as a more or less standard option, I think there could be enough of a market for it to survive.


----------



## 8:13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18674210
> 
> 
> LOL! OLED is more of a myth than an actual product when it comes to large consumer displays. In fact most of what is happening in OLED has to do with lighting and not displays.
> 
> 
> The largest display you can buy TODAY is 15". That isn't even a decent PC sized monitor let alone a TV. And at a ridiculous price of over $2000 . . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And both Panasonic and Samsung are selling PDP 3DTVs today.



2013 will see OLED TVS link 

By then the 3D movies will be readily available and the 3D TV party can begin in full swing.

Panasonic will have to drop the price on their 3D PDP to compete on price.


----------



## cneely8




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AJSJones* /forum/post/18674224
> 
> _Full_ HDTV is a "gimmick" name, part of the conspiracy to make us buy newer models of HDTV, is it not?



Google it because I'm probably saying it wrong, but my understanding is that most of the HD content on cable and satelite is "HD-lite" and not the full 1080p pixel resolution or something like that. That's allegedly one reason blu-ray looks better than the same hD movie off the cable/sat provider.


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cneely8* /forum/post/18675776
> 
> 
> Google it because I'm probably saying it wrong, but my understanding is that most of the HD content on cable and satelite is "HD-lite" and not the full 1080p pixel resolution or something like that. That's allegedly one reason blu-ray looks better than the same hD movie off the cable/sat provider.



Perhaps you need to google it









This is old stuff but there may be others who are not quite clear on this, so here goes some history and background for the 3D story.


OTA HD (not cable/satellite) is either 720p60 (progressive at 60 frames per second) or 1080i60 (interlaced at 60 fields per second). "1080p", like "Full HD", is another "gimmick" moniker designed to obfuscate! It can be 1080p24 (24 frames per second), 1080p30 but there were, until recently no sources (outside PCs) that provide 1080p60 _information_ content (not to be confused with _display rates_) - possibly some newer camcorders can record at that but they compress pretty heavily. If someone says "1080p" but does not add the framerate, they are not telling you the whole story - a nice way to confuse and mislead.


1920 x 1080 as a computer screen resolution (or image dimension) is higher resolution (pixel count) than a 1280 x 720 screen. This p was added because people think it is better to be progressive than interlaced (like the 480i the way NTSC was before ATSC displaced it) - so "interlaced" was a "BAD" thing so the 1080i reduced sales. That's particularly true for MOVING images but when you compare moving pictures at 1280x720p60 with 1080i60, there's not much difference, especially when scaled up to 1920x1080 at a display refresh rate of 120 Hz, for example. 1080i60 has the same INFORMATION content (pixels per second) as 1080p30/540p60 but laid out in time a little differently. 1280x720p60 has a similar amount of information content. If it's a still picture, the 1080 wins in terms of perceived resolution/Image quality, but if it's very fast action then the 720p wins (because it has no interlacing artifacts).


I think a large part of the reason content looks better on Blu-Ray is that it hasn't been (re)compressed and messed with the way the satellite and cable providers can and often do, to keep the bandwidth down. Blu-Ray can store data at 1920x1080p yes but it is limited to 30 frames per second (or 60 interlaced fields). Movies are often/usually stored at 24p, the frame rate they were filmed at. Blu-Ray and its associated equipment is also improved over earlier HD systems so it can maintain and process the information better. High-quality OTA and satellite HD CAN look just as good as Blu-Ray. "HD-lite", or whatever you understand, is HD with a lot of "calories" squeezed out and discarded by the compression process brought about by bandwidth limitations of "more HD channels, not enough satellites".


Now, back to this topic, with 3D coming along, that pressure on bandwidth will increase the problem of limited resolution in the providers' world.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8:13* /forum/post/18675328
> 
> 
> 2013 will see OLED TVS link
> 
> By then the 3D movies will be readily available and the 3D TV party can begin in full swing.
> 
> Panasonic will have to drop the price on their 3D PDP to compete on price.



You really believe that 3 years from now - a 50" Panasonic PDP - which should be well below $2000 has to compete with an unknown , but probably VERY expensive 50" OLED - if they even make one in that size?


A new display tech has been on the horizon for a number of years now. First it was SED, now it's OLED.


When I see a 50" OLED in Best Buy - THEN I will believe that such a product exists. But until then, all the links in the world don't convince me as they seem to convince you.


----------



## gc8710

The jump from B&W to color had very few if any drawbacks. If there were any at first, they eventually were corrected or improved.

I also can't think of any drawbacks or anything that had to be sacrificed in terms of PQ when going from SDTV to HDTV. This also applies the upgrade from DVD to BD.

Every aspect of PQ is improved in the last two examples.Is there any aspect of a SD picture that is better that an HD picture? I can't think of any.

Now to compare these advances to 3D is not quite accurate.

Sure , you gain the 3D optical illusion which many will find enjoyable and an improvement.But at what cost?

Isn't picture brightness sacrificed? How about resolution,detail, color richness and accuracy ?

Is deviation from a more optimum gamma introduced with 3D?

The debate about which delivers a better picture, color or B&W really is useless,

So is the debate about which is better SD or HD.

But I think the debate about whether 3D is actually better in terms of viewer enjoyment is a valid issue.


----------



## walford

It may be that the very basic 2D to 3D conversion done by the new Samsungs is all that most people will want since as you point out having "objects" flying your face is not necessarily enjoyable but having a TV screen act more like looking out a window then looking like a picture hanging on the wall is. It will be interesting in to find out in a couple of months what percentage of Samsung 3D tv users are still normally wathing 2D content with 2D to 3D conversion in effect since to do so requires the wearing of the active shutter glases.


----------



## TVOD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18676862
> 
> 
> The jump from B&W to color had very few if any drawbacks. If there were any at first, they eventually were corrected or improved.



Other than losing half the resolution (4.1 Mhz to ~2 Mhz using notch filters) and adding chroma crawl. Low band color recording had alot more moire, which was visible in B&W. Anybody watching Carson remembers the rainbow of crawling and flickering colors (RCA cameras like the TK44s were especially bad for that as the contour circuit peaked at subcarrier frquency). It took decades to get back the resolution and reduce the artifacts, and even then there was a compromise on diagonal resoution on motion.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18676862
> 
> 
> I also can't think of any drawbacks or anything that had to be sacrificed in terms of PQ when going from SDTV to HDTV.



We didn't have macroblocking in analog SD. There were other issues, but this was a new feature of digital transmission. Granted it was there on SD digital also.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18676862
> 
> 
> Now to compare these advances to 3D is not quite accurate.
> 
> Sure , you gain the 3D optical illusion which many will find enjoyable and an improvement.But at what cost?
> 
> Isn't picture brightness sacrificed? How about resolution,detail, color richness and accuracy ?
> 
> Is deviation from a more optimum gamma introduced with 3D?



Plasmas driven higher can suffer from inaccurate gamma as they can start to introduce a knee instead of continuing the exponential curve. Other technologies like DLP and LCD can add greater illumination to compensate for brightness loss. However, plasma technology looks to get an improvement in the speed of the green phosphor so 2D should benefit from that.


My concern for loss of quality will be from side by side schemes that lower the horizontal resolution.


----------



## Augerhandle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WorldCup2010ESPN* /forum/post/18665984
> 
> 
> (snip)The title of this thread is rather vague...



I think this thread teaches us a lot. About people. Remember the format war and the fanboy arguments and button pushing? Remember XBOXers trolling in a Playstation forum and vice versa?


Take a look at the number of posts for this thread compared to all others on the first page of this forum. All one has to do is come up with an inflamatory title, and you're guaranteed to have fun.


The thread could have been more appropriately titled, "I really don't agree with the present 3D tech being viable in my situation, what do you think?"


But then, it might now be dead on paqe 4.


----------



## gc8710




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TVOD* /forum/post/18677310
> 
> 
> Other than losing half the resolution (4.1 Mhz to ~2 Mhz using notch filters) and adding chroma crawl. Low band color recording had alot more moire, which was visible in B&W. Anybody watching Carson remembers the rainbow of crawling and flickering colors (RCA cameras like the TK44s were especially bad for that as the contour circuit peaked at subcarrier frquency). It took decades to get back the resolution and reduce the artifacts, and even then there was a compromise on diagonal resoution on motion.
> 
> We didn't have macroblocking in analog SD. There were other issues, but this was a new feature of digital transmission. Granted it was there on SD digital also.Plasmas driven higher can suffer from inaccurate gamma as they can start to introduce a knee instead of continuing the exponential curve. Other technologies like DLP and LCD can add greater illumination to compensate for brightness loss. However, plasma technology looks to get an improvement in the speed of the green phosphor so 2D should benefit from that.
> 
> 
> My concern for loss of quality will be from side by side schemes that lower the horizontal resolution.



Macroblocking,chroma crawl,introduce a knee? I've noticed a trend on the internet that really has no place in a logical discussion.There appears to be a tendency to dispute any opinion,claim, or fact contained in a post or comment by mentioning a point or two to the contrary. Seriously try it. Say anything that can be considered true or backed by common sense and then dispute it .Anything.It's easy. Night is darker than day for instance.But....Iceland,North Pole...... See what I mean? And Google just makes it that much easier to find a disputing point.

Back to the issue.I was there during the change from black and white to color.Nobody, but nobody said they want their black and white set back.Nobody said"I detect macroblocking".100% of the people wanted to replace the old set with a color set. Same with SD to HD and DVD to BD.No complaints from anybody.Nobody said it introduce a knee instead of continuing the exponential curve.LOL.

However I have heard already from the few who have seen it, that DDD dims the picture,distorts the colors,lowers the detail.A reduction in viewing pleasure that can be measured by the human eyeball. No expensive meter necessary.This is what we are talking about here. Do you understand the point I'm trying to make here? No graphs or charts are needed.

I realize the urge to discuss topics on a technical level is hard to resist here.That's fine if it's relevant.It's not relevant on this thread.

This is much more of a consumer philosophy discussion based on what we know now.

Your comments about macroblocking and knee instead of continuing the exponential curve seem way out of place here.

Do you see Apple and Microsoft running ads during prime time discussing the superiority of their computing codes? See what I mean?

I might be interested in these technical details if I worked in a field that was in anyway connected to display panels or electronics or home entertainment.I don't.

Most people aren't. Some topics and threads here lend themselves to these discussions.This thread doesn't.It is a discussion about whether or not consumers are interested in 3D.


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18677768
> 
> 
> Do you understand the point I'm trying to make here?



Not even a little.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18674536
> 
> 
> LOL! I am old enough (
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) to remember the transition from B & W to Color! My grandfather was in the business. And this will make all of you laugh . . .
> 
> 
> He was a "reseller" throughout the 1950's up until his death in 1966. He had contacts with the TV CEMs and also with some large retailers like Mont. Wards, J.C. Penny and others. He would contract to buy from say RCA, 50,000 19 inch TV's which he would resell to the retailers as custom TV's for their consumers because they would contract with him to have their brand name put on the TV instead of the CEM.
> 
> 
> We had a color TV in our house in 1956 (I was 5 at the time). We didn't buy it, it was a gift from my grandfather. A 1956 21" Color TV costed almost as much as an economy car in 1956.
> 
> 
> Anyways, my grandfather maintained that color was a fad and was so expensive it would never catch on. He was a very smart man and a self made millionare at the time of his death
> 
> 
> OK - so he wasn't very successful at long term prognostacation.






LOL Lee you are ancient







pretty good story though about your grandfather! Yeah, see you did witness transition form black and white to Color TV and from that to HD. To me it sounds 3D is really no stranger here, Transition look exactly the same. Whats going to help 3D the fact it has the ability to be on blu ray, cable, satellite feeds and in 3D games. Sure, it will take a while to get there but will be standard, just like HD (I predict it will be faster transition though).


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TVOD* /forum/post/18674821
> 
> 
> Color took around 15 years before it really started to become mainstream. In the mid 60s CBS was an all B&W network. Color was very expensive, and the quality was all over the place. Anyone watching TV in that era was routinely exposed to quad tape "banding" and often times poorly registered cameras. Sets were often no where near optimized for proper settings with LOTS of chroma and improper phase being common, not to mention bad convergence. Obviously things improved dramatically to where NTSC made a quite decent image at home, especially after 2d and 3d comb filters became common.
> 
> 
> HD was around for nearly two decades before it hit the airwaves in the US. In the early days there wasn't alot of hope that it would amount to much and would eventually fade away due to it's high cost. HD productions were considered experimental. Early HD sets in Japan cost around $30K! Even right up to the point of the analog cutoff, stations often considered the HD feed to be a secondary and a bit of a nuisance. It often wasn't monitored by the stations as many AVS members can recall informing them that something had gone awry.
> 
> 
> 3D is a different story in that it can be implemented comparatively inexpensively on the consumer's display, and can use existing technology for distribution. It can, however, represent a sizable investment for production. In the chicken and the egg scenario, I think it remains to be seen how committed content providers will be to the extra expense. If consumer display devices come with 3D as a more or less standard option, I think there could be enough of a market for it to survive.








I like this post and should be informative to some members here in avs. He is exactly right about color TV and HD. Although Color TV remained to have few issues but it was indeed big hit.



HD transition took a while and i totally agree the prices was extremely high, I mean very high that many did not expect HD will ever take due to the price and the lack of content. However HD did take off after years pass by where prices become reasonable and good amount of content exist now. But again HD does have the drawback that SD quality in HDTV remains to look bad compared to the older TV, CRT for example. It was somewhat of a problem because many of the SD channels via satellite/cable didn't make the switch right away to HD, so there was concern there, it is still exist today.





Two transition went well, It took years for color TV or HD to Establish itself as mainstream. 3D is possibly the 3rd transition and i can tell you from experience this is already reminding me pretty much with HD transition. It will take some time to be standard and there is advantages that support the flexibility for 3D in the upcoming years with faster speed to add more content, so far i think 3D HD having more content in first year than HD were, we will know for sure in June and before the end of the year.





Unfortunately some people don't look in the past and learn from industry movement/improvement, they only looking now, what is 3D going to do for me and how the glasses cost a lot and so much, like they pretend HD or Color TV was all good and all that when it first hit the market. Things takes time to improve and fix all necessary issues, some issues will remain but that again bring my argument that there is no perfect technology and it will remain that way!


----------



## Rammitinski




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18677768
> 
> 
> Same with SD to HD and DVD to BD. No complaints from anybody.



You obviously haven't been reading around this forum long enough.


----------



## Chris_TC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18676862
> 
> 
> Isn't picture brightness sacrificed?



No, on a properly set up system the brightness isn't any different. 3-D in itself doesn't change the brightness anyway, it's just our current playback technology that "steals" light. Increasing the display brightness fixes that issue.


It's just like in photography. If you put a polarizing filter in front of your lens, you'll lose about one stop of light. To counter this you open the aperture more, you expose longer or you up the ISO. No big deal at all.



> Quote:
> How about resolution



No.



> Quote:
> detail



No.



> Quote:
> color richness and accuracy ?



No.



> Quote:
> Is deviation from a more optimum gamma introduced with 3D?



No. What makes you think that?


Just because you now have two images per frame doesn't change those image parameters at all. Richness, gamma, detail, resolution all stay the same.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18676862
> 
> 
> The jump from B&W to color had very few if any drawbacks. If there were any at first, they eventually were corrected or improved.
> 
> I also can't think of any drawbacks or anything that had to be sacrificed in terms of PQ when going from SDTV to HDTV. This also applies the upgrade from DVD to BD.
> 
> Every aspect of PQ is improved in the last two examples.Is there any aspect of a SD picture that is better that an HD picture? I can't think of any.
> 
> Now to compare these advances to 3D is not quite accurate.
> 
> Sure , you gain the 3D optical illusion which many will find enjoyable and an improvement.But at what cost?
> 
> Isn't picture brightness sacrificed? How about resolution,detail, color richness and accuracy ?
> 
> Is deviation from a more optimum gamma introduced with 3D?
> 
> The debate about which delivers a better picture, color or B&W really is useless,
> 
> So is the debate about which is better SD or HD.
> 
> But I think the debate about whether 3D is actually better in terms of viewer enjoyment is a valid issue.





You obviously wasn't around during first stages of HD or Color TV. They both have their problems actually. Technologies are not perfect. The popular and worst con for HDTV that it makes SD content look bad, Many didn't jump into HD wagon because of that problem, there were others reasons too that people have answered your post already. HD process was slow, and many of channels was still in SD. Some Major channels was still in HD and some felt why should they upgrade to HDTV Ready TV when there were lack of content and their favorite channels in SD will look bad in newer sets, it should be the opposite!




However nevertheless HD become dominant and most SD channels did make the switch to HD so no real worries in that prospective but it took years even though some channels right now are not yet in HD but plan to be soon perhaps.


----------



## gtgray

No one had to where special glasses to view color and HDTV during the transition. A very small percentage of the population had eye problems that made color or HDTV in accessible or probrematic.


I think you underestimate the number of people who suffer serious impairment or lack of 3D vision. Until we get passed 3D based on wearing some kind of glasses, I suspect it will never be mainstream, even then a 3D presentation must be able to accomodate a mixed audience of 3D capable viewers at the same time as the presentation looks correct to veiwers who don't stereoscopic vision. Further how much content would really benefit from 3D? I can't imagine that the hour I spend each night viewing Charlie Rose would be better in 3D. I have a lazy eye, so 3D is very problematic for me personally. I have tried the old red and blue glasses and I see two images as a result.


What do you, when a guest comes by and you don't have an extra pair of glasses to offer them, stop watching your 3D content. People talk about sports in 3D. Can you imagine a large group trying to watch a game in 3D while they socialize and can no longer make eye contact as chatter about the game/players ebb and flow with the action. This is a seriously flawed technology, that fails in a social and group context. Even, the classic scenarion where a married couple is sitting on the couch, one reading a book, the other watching a movie. The one watching the movie has glasses on, the other won't even want to occasionally look up if something suddenly is of interest on the screen.


3D may not die right away, but in its current form, it will be a very expensive hula hoop and will linger one forever in the twilight zone. People who buy it, the first time will be very reluctant to invest in it in the future. Unless and until this technology requires no glasses, and the presentation for those who are 3D challenged looks equal in quality to the best 2D it has no chance of supplanting 2D as mainstream television/display technology.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gtgray* /forum/post/18681854
> 
> 
> A very small percentage of the population had eye problems that made color or HDTV in accessible or probrematic.
> 
> 
> I think you underestimate the number of people who suffer serious impairment or lack of 3D vision.



Eight percent of men are color blind.


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18672964
> 
> 
> And OBTW - Betamax only failed as a CONSUMER format. It went on to be HUGELY successful as a professional video format and has allowed Sony to dominate the Pro and Broadcast industry.



Do you think 3D will follow the same path?


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18674188
> 
> 
> Come back and say all that 30 days from now when DirecTV will have already launched (4) 3D channels.



I just hope d* doesn't do with 3D what they initially did with HD. I doubt anyone really wants "3D Lite".


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris_TC* /forum/post/18679516
> 
> 
> No, on a properly set up system the brightness isn't any different. 3-D in itself doesn't change the brightness anyway, it's just our current playback technology that "steals" light. Increasing the display brightness fixes that issue.



That statement appears to be self-contradictory. On the one hand you say 3D doesn't change the brightness while on the other hand you say "Increasing the display brightness fixes the issue".


----------



## tvine2000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *walford* /forum/post/18677034
> 
> 
> It may be that the very basic 2D to 3D conversion done by the new Samsungs is all that most people will want since as you point out having "objects" flying your face is not necessarily enjoyable but having a TV screen act more like looking out a window then looking like a picture hanging on the wall is. It will be interesting in to find out in a couple of months what percentage of Samsung 3D tv users are still normally wathing 2D content with 2D to 3D conversion in effect since to do so requires the wearing of the active shutter glases.



Which is the point KEN H was trying to make before a few of you jumped him! If 3dtv is effective consumers will buy it.What i have seen the effect of 3d looks effective enough. And what LEE said. 3d is being produced by the whole industry not just one company,but many! When you get a force that big pushing in the same direction,i'd say 3d has something going for it.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gtgray* /forum/post/18681854
> 
> 
> No one had to where special glasses to view color and HDTV during the transition. A very small percentage of the population had eye problems that made color or HDTV in accessible or probrematic.
> 
> 
> I think you underestimate the number of people who suffer serious impairment or lack of 3D vision. Until we get passed 3D based on wearing some kind of glasses, I suspect it will never be mainstream, even then a 3D presentation must be able to accomodate a mixed audience of 3D capable viewers at the same time as the presentation looks correct to veiwers who don't stereoscopic vision. Further how much content would really benefit from 3D? I can't imagine that the hour I spend each night viewing Charlie Rose would be better in 3D. I have a lazy eye, so 3D is very problematic for me personally. I have tried the old red and blue glasses and I see two images as a result.
> 
> 
> What do you, when a guest comes by and you don't have an extra pair of glasses to offer them, stop watching your 3D content. People talk about sports in 3D. Can you imagine a large group trying to watch a game in 3D while they socialize and can no longer make eye contact as chatter about the game/players ebb and flow with the action. This is a seriously flawed technology, that fails in a social and group context. Even, the classic scenarion where a married couple is sitting on the couch, one reading a book, the other watching a movie. The one watching the movie has glasses on, the other won't even want to occasionally look up if something suddenly is of interest on the screen.
> 
> 
> 3D may not die right away, but in its current form, it will be a very expensive hula hoop and will linger one forever in the twilight zone. People who buy it, the first time will be very reluctant to invest in it in the future. Unless and until this technology requires no glasses, and the presentation for those who are 3D challenged looks equal in quality to the best 2D it has no chance of supplanting 2D as mainstream television/display technology.







Ok, i will give you few credit with your reasoning. Some people doesn't like 3D or hate it for the wrong reasons.




It is true Color TV and HD TV doesn't/didn't require anyone to wear any type of glasses to view the content. However with that being said, these two tech did have their problems that hold them back slightly back to become mainstream at the beginning, It took a lot of years for color TV to establish itself and it took some years for HD to establish itself as well but they did manage to become mainstream but it took years and that is the main point.



3D will not be any different from Color TV and HD TV. 3D glasses are not cool and people are not used to wear glasses to watch any content and i agree with you about your examples. This is the biggest con i can see so far with the 3D technology, however its not the pricing about the 3D glasses that are the concern, because i can imagine those 3D glasses can be extremely cheap and many may not mind that but the issue is the inconvenience. But first production of any new technology usually carry the most problems in the first year and so far 3D glasses are biggest problem in the current form.




I read articles online and have some friends in TV industry business and i can tell you one thing, the plans for 3D in the future are promising (according to them) the one major thing that i know and heard TV makers are working on 3D TV sets that will be viewable without 3D glasses, TV makers and content providers fully understand the con to view with 3d Glasses and this will be resolved. Not sure how soon will 3D become watchable without glasses but i predict it will time but the idea in general prospective that 3D will be viewable without 3d glasses. Which takes care of the major issues about 3D glasses.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tvine2000* /forum/post/18683066
> 
> 
> Which is the point KEN H was trying to make before a few of you jumped him! If 3dtv is effective consumers will buy it.What i have seen the effect of 3d looks effective enough. And what LEE said. 3d is being produced by the whole industry not just one company,but many! When you get a force that big pushing in the same direction,i'd say 3d has something going for it.






This is correct. The whole TV industry are working together to insure that 3D to become mainstream in the next couple/some years. All major producers and and all major companies are involve, this usually indicates there is a major weave coming to promote 3D sets. So far the movement appears to be more effective than HD when it was in first production! I heard Porn started to get on 3D wagon already LOL


----------



## tvine2000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WorldCup2010ESPN* /forum/post/18683141
> 
> 
> This is correct. The whole TV industry are working together to insure that 3D to become mainstream in the next couple/some years. All major producers and and all major companies are involve, this usually indicates there is a major weave coming to promote 3D sets. So far the movement appears to be more effective than HD when it was in first production! I heard Porn started to get on 3D wagon already LOL



This has happen before.Hang around these forums long enough and you'll always see a group of people that deem a new technology will fail.This happened with blu-ray after the format war.Some people said blu-ray will never go mainstream.Just go back to old posts and you'll see what i mean.


Could 3d fail?maybe,but i wouldn't bank on it.


----------



## Taffy Lewis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gtgray* /forum/post/18681854
> 
> 
> ...I think you underestimate the number of people who suffer serious impairment or lack of 3D vision. *Until we get passed 3D based on wearing some kind of glasses, I suspect it will never be mainstream,* even then a 3D presentation must be able to accomodate a mixed audience of 3D capable viewers at the same time as the presentation looks correct to veiwers who don't stereoscopic vision.



Referring to the highlighted text I would agree with you if 3D movie goers DIDN'T have to wear glasses...but, they do. Everyone knows that to watch 3D you need to wear special glasses either in the theater or at home....not a big deal...imo. And, of course 3D TV does not need to be mainstream to be successful.


> Quote:
> Further how much content would really benefit from 3D? I can't imagine that the hour I spend each night viewing Charlie Rose would be better in 3D...



Yeah...if that's the main reason for buying into 3D TV...I wouldn't either. No...I'm thinking the Olympics, sports playoff games, the super-bowl, 3D movies, PBS concerts. Geeeeze, the sky's the limit.


> Quote:
> What do you, when a guest comes by and you don't have an extra pair of glasses to offer them, stop watching your 3D content.



Sure....why not. It's the polite thing to do.


> Quote:
> People talk about sports in 3D. Can you imagine a large group trying to watch a game in 3D while they socialize and can no longer make eye contact as chatter about the game/players ebb and flow with the action. This is a seriously flawed technology, that fails in a social and group context.



I agree. In a social setting entertaining a large group of sports fans using 3D technology is not a good idea. So...don't do it.









> Quote:
> 3D may not die right away, but in its current form, it will be a very expensive hula hoop and will linger one forever in the twilight zone. People who buy it, the first time will be very reluctant to invest in it in the future. Unless and until this technology requires no glasses, and the presentation for those who are 3D challenged looks equal in quality to the best 2D it has no chance of supplanting 2D as mainstream television/display technology.



I disagree. As stereophonic sound took advantage of humans having two ears to enjoy enhanced sound, 3D will enhance the viewing experience for most consumers far beyond what 2D TV viewing has to offer.


----------



## ssjLancer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee* /forum/post/18681879
> 
> 
> Eight percent of men are color blind.



You do know that being color blind rarely means complete color blindness right? And it doesnt cause the viewer discomfort either watching color tvs.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Taffy Lewis* /forum/post/18684238
> 
> 
> Referring to the highlighted text I would agree with you if 3D movie goers DIDN'T have to wear glasses...but, they do. Everyone knows that to watch 3D you need to wear special glasses either in the theater or at home....not a big deal...imo.



The experience at the theater is the reason they KNOW they dont like to wear glasses. At least in the home setting.


> Quote:
> And, of course 3D TV does not need to be mainstream to be successful.



Depends on your definition I guess. Im sure Laserdisc made alot of studios some money, they probably wouldnt consider it a success though. It targeted hobbyists, it was never sold in large retail chains.. with 3D I believe the studios are aiming for the mainstream audience.


----------



## dovercat

I would disagree with 3D being pointless, the point of 3D is to re-invigorate the sales figures for cinema tickets and new TVs. For cinema tickets sales I think it works, the effect in a cinema adds to the experience for many. But as a home format replacement to 2D I think it is questionable


Current 3D is not true 3D because it does not have lens accommodation or viewer head/eye motion parallax.


Current 3D works by using binocular disparity but has no lens accommodation, the focal distance to the screen does not change. The convergence - eyes converge on the object of interest and accommodation the eyes lens focal distance changes to bring the object of interest into focus are linked and can not be disassociated. 3D works by changing convergence but does not change accommodation to match so the eyes are constantly going to the wrong focal distance and having to quickly correct their error to bring the object in to focus.


Current 3D has many potential problems binocular rivalry (excessive disparity), frame cancellation (near-edge cut-off for objects with front depth), shear distortion (perspective distortion with viewpoint changing - the image appears to follow as the viewer moves, due to no viewer motion parallax), keystone distortion (unnatural vertical disparity), binocular crosstalk (ghost images), cardboard effect (few discrete depth planes), which have to be worked around by film makers.


It does not expanded what cinematography can do, it limits how scenes can be presented. For example typically the 3D scene has to have the region-of-interest mapping to depth planes near the display plane, it may have to squeeze the depth if the scene depth is larger than the available comfortable/tolerable depth range or add artificial blur, no fast changes in point of focus depth due to fast motion or cuts, etc...


In its current form 3D will never be a replacement for 2D because it is unsuitable for close viewing distances, off angle viewing and prolonged viewing.


The further away you are from the screen the more you can tolerate aggressive 3D, high positive parallax and fast changes of convergence depth, before eyestrain and double vision become an issue. Ocular depth of focus is less the closer the point of focus is, so the need for lens accommodation is higher.


With 40ft viewer distance at a movie theater the 3D effect can comfortably create apparent object distance of 8ft to infinity. The parallax can be from 10 inches positive to 2.5 inches negative. With screen and object apparent distance about 26ft or further away fixation is possible with un-accommodated emmetropic eyes so eyestrain should not be a problem when 3D is used to add depth past the screen in a cinema.


With only a 6ft viewer distance with a 3D TV the effect can comfortably create apparent object distance of 4ft to 9ft11in, 3D depth of only 5ft11in. The parallax can be from 1 inch positive to 1 inch negative. Even this might be optimistic for prolonged viewing one study put the comfort zone at 6ft distance to screen as a depth range of only 3ft. You can use the 3D effect to make things look closer or further than this comfort zone but risk inducing eyestrain or double vision in viewers and even within the comfort zone changing the depth distance convergence too fast causes problems.


A 25 year old adult has a accommodation range of about 10 diopter. But prescription corrective lenses have to be accurate to within 1/4 diopter in some cases 1/8 diopter to give fully corrected vision. With incorrect prescription glasses the eyes / brain can partially adapt but it causes eyestrain for several weeks. So the absolutely safe - no eyestrain guaranteed accommodation range is very small. Current 3D will never be suitable for everyday prolonged TV viewing.


Current 3D is filmed with the camera eyes looking straight at what is happening with zero viewing angle. The more off axis you look at the resulting image the more unnatural it looks. In a cinema you are pretty close to zero viewing angle so it looks natural. With a relatively small 3D TV and multiple viewers in a home environment you are a lot more likely to have off axis viewers getting a less natural looking 3D effect.


It is also ill suited to how TV is shot. TV is shot knowing it will be viewed on a relatively small screen, more cuts between wide shots and close ups and more rapid cuts between different areas of interest and rapid pans and zooms, than in films shot for the big screen. This is because close ups are needed on a small screen for the viewer to easily see what is happening, but are less necessary on a big screen. Rapid cuts between different areas of the action and rapid pans and zooms increase the speed of action but are more jarring on a large screen. Changing the convergence distance and apparent focal distance with 3D needs to done relatively slowly.


The other problem with current 3D TV is it is not a raising of quality, it is a lowering of quality. 3D TV in Europe seems to be adopting the side by side transmission method, 50Hz 1080i x half 1920 (usually 1440) resolution per eye. Most displays are using sequential shutter so are dimmer in 3D mode and have to duplicate frames to prevent flickering and with displays using passive 3D left/right circular polarization instead the usual method seems to be alternating lines, so you end up with half the up/down resolution as well as half the left/right resolution from the side by side transmission system.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tvine2000* /forum/post/18684173
> 
> 
> This has happen before.Hang around these forums long enough and you'll always see a group of people that deem a new technology will fail.This happened with blu-ray after the format war.Some people said blu-ray will never go mainstream.Just go back to old posts and you'll see what i mean.
> 
> 
> Could 3d fail?maybe,but i wouldn't bank on it.






Oh, if you looked at my posts regarding 3D. I keep mentioning the transition from Color to HD, look alike with 3D (aka 2D HD to 3D HD now). 3D have advantages that HD didn't had at the beginning but 3D still have issues that it will be fixed in the next couple years. I agree with you, that when any new tech comes, you will always have some attacking it. I still remember the old forums that attack HD. Some people doesn't learn from the past.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris_TC* /forum/post/18679516
> 
> 
> No, on a properly set up system the brightness isn't any different. 3-D in itself doesn't change the brightness anyway, it's just our current playback technology that "steals" light. Increasing the display brightness fixes that issue.
> 
> 
> It's just like in photography. If you put a polarizing filter in front of your lens, you'll lose about one stop of light. To counter this you open the aperture more, you expose longer or you up the ISO. No big deal at all.



Not really true when talking projection technology at least. After the process you are down to about 40% of the light with no way to compensate.


Art


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee* /forum/post/18681879
> 
> 
> Eight percent of men are color blind.



LOL! So?


They are color blind whether they watch SD, HD or 3D. Color blindness doesn't impair your ability to watch 3D or any other D.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/18685622
> 
> 
> Not really true when talking projection technology at least. After the process you are down to about 40% of the light with no way to compensate.
> 
> 
> Art



Not so - you can use a higher gain screen be it white for active or silver for passive


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18681912
> 
> 
> I just hope d* doesn't do with 3D what they initially did with HD. I doubt anyone really wants "3D Lite".



Nope - they specifically said they would do SbS 1920x1080i. That was a product of them using MPEG2. They now use MPEG4


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18681893
> 
> 
> Do you think 3D will follow the same path?



Different situation. 3D isn't one format being promoted by a single company.


----------



## marlin29311

I'm personally waiting for holo-TV.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18686245
> 
> 
> Not so - you can use a higher gain screen be it white for active or silver for passive



Sorry Lee but this just falls right in line with the loss of quality mentioned above. Manufacturers have been moving away from gain ,until now, for PQ reasons. If we go back to gain you lose uniformity,color control,viewing angle flexibility and add screen texture and sparklies that don't need to be there.


Yes technically you can compensate but you give up five picture quality parameters to get 3D.




Art


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *marlin29311* /forum/post/18686333
> 
> 
> I'm personally waiting for holo-TV.



Maybe you would like to explain the physics behind a single lens projection, projecting an image in thin air?


There is a reason why they call it science fiction. . .


"Beam me up Scotty!"


"Warp Speed!"


----------



## mzpro5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18686764
> 
> 
> Maybe you would like to explain the physics behind a single lens projection, projecting an image in thin air?
> 
> 
> There is a reason why they call it science fiction. . .
> 
> 
> "Beam me up Scotty!"
> 
> 
> "Warp Speed!"



That is an arrogant and short sighted statement.


Go back 1000 years and show the average person a flashlight and ask them to explain the physics of how it works. Chances are you'd be burned at the stake for being a witch.


Today's science fiction is tomorrow's history.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dovercat* /forum/post/18684951
> 
> 
> But as a home format replacement to 2D I think it is questionable



I don't think anyone here expects the new 3D to replace 2D HDTV. Where did you get that idea? When I get my new TV I think I'll probably only watch 3D about 20% of the time at the most. But when I do want to watch a 3D movie or a 3D sports event, I will enjoy it. So many people here think that with all of the drawbacks it shouldn't even exist until we can have perfect 3D without glasses and the perspective will change depending on where you are in relation to the image. That PERFECT TV(or whatever tech it will be) is many many years away. No matter how limited the current technology is, it will let me watch TV with extra depth. Anyone that doesn't like it doesn't have to watch it---ever.


----------



## cneely8




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *marlin29311* /forum/post/18686333
> 
> 
> I'm personally waiting for holo-TV.



I don't know - the blacks on that R-2 unit look horrible! That's what you get when you buy projectors from jawas...


----------



## gc8710




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken H* /forum/post/18678856
> 
> 
> Not even a little.



Let me make it simpler. I've been asking friends and neighbors what they think about this 3D optical illusion manipulation. I've gotten either a huh or a laugh.(500 posts here and I'm the only one using the term optical illusion on a thread about an optical illusion,that's odd) These are people who go to work,come home,relax with friends and family in front of the set.Color TV and HD fits into their lives very well. So does DVD and BD.Bothering with this 3D optical illusion doesn't.

Who does Samsung need for this 3D to be successful. These people or someone who works with this stuff,or posts 41,000 comments here?

I guess approaching this objectively is out of the question


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mzpro5* /forum/post/18686830
> 
> 
> 
> Go back 1000 years and show the average person a flashlight and ask them to explain the physics of how it works. Chances are you'd be burned at the stake for being a witch.



It's a fair cop










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mzpro5* /forum/post/18686830
> 
> 
> Today's science fiction is tomorrow's history.





However, the _laws_ of physics haven't changed in while. Just because we can _imagine_ something (science fiction part) doesn't automatically mean we can _change_ the laws of physics to create it. But don't worry, those guys will figure it out.


----------



## cctvtech

3D Holography may come sooner, rather than later:

CNN's Jessica Yellin in holographic 3D


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18686991
> 
> 
> I guess approaching this objectively is out of the question



Not sure what you mean by objectively. It's really simple---totally objective--some of us want it even if it is an optical illusion. If you don't want to watch it, don't. Evidently you don't think any of us should be able to watch it since it doesn't meet your standards.


----------



## marlin29311




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18686764
> 
> 
> Maybe you would like to explain the physics behind a single lens projection, projecting an image in thin air?
> 
> 
> There is a reason why they call it science fiction. . .
> 
> 
> "Beam me up Scotty!"
> 
> 
> "Warp Speed!"



Does anyone see the joke in my post? I'm just trying to inject a little humor into a heated thread...


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mzpro5* /forum/post/18686830
> 
> 
> Go back 1000 years and show the average person a flashlight and ask them to explain the physics of how it works. Chances are you'd be burned at the stake for being a witch.
> 
> 
> Today's science fiction is tomorrow's history.



Sorry - it appears you do not understand the physics of light and photons. If you did - you wouldn't have posted such nonsense.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18686991
> 
> 
> Let me make it simpler. I've been asking friends and neighbors what they think about this 3D optical illusion manipulation. I've gotten either a huh or a laugh.(500 posts here and I'm the only one using the term optical illusion on a thread about an optical illusion,that's odd) These are people who go to work,come home,relax with friends and family in front of the set.Color TV and HD fits into their lives very well. So does DVD and BD.Bothering with this 3D optical illusion doesn't.Who does Samsung need for this 3D to be successful. These people or someone who works with this stuff,or posts 41,000 comments here?




Yes - 3D is an optical illusion - but it needs 3 things to be successful:


1. 2 Seperate views (L & R)

2. Glasses

3. Our Eye/brain to put it together


And we are used to optical illusions when it comes to displayed images. The Contrast Ratio - gives an optical illusion of depth where there is none.


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18687752
> 
> 
> Yes - 3D is an optical illusion - but it needs 3 things to be successful:
> 
> 
> 1. 2 Separate views (L & R)
> 
> 2. Glasses
> 
> 3. Our Eye/brain to put it together



Sorry, I only have 2-1/2 of those qualifications.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18687886
> 
> 
> Sorry, I only have 2-1/2 of those qualifications.



"How about a liitle fire Scarecrow?"


----------



## mzpro5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18687714
> 
> 
> Sorry - it appears you do not understand the physics of light and photons. If you did - you wouldn't have posted such nonsense.



Please oh great one enlighten this ignorant wretch.


You know what you know but more importantly you don't know what you don't know.


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18686991
> 
> 
> I guess approaching this objectively is out of the question



Yes, I guess it is.


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/18686332
> 
> 
> Sorry Lee but this just falls right in line with the loss of quality mentioned above. Manufacturers have been moving away from gain ,until now, for PQ reasons.



Agree.


Compromise will be involved.


----------



## Steve S

I too am old enough to remember the "transition" from BW to Color. To say there was no sacrifice when watching BW on a color set is totally false, and was false for at least the first 15 years of color. There were significant factors involved--convergence was one, BW usually had nasty rainbows along edges when shown on a color set until about 1963 or so, 10 years after it's introduction. The picture was also significantly dimmer than on a BW set because the phosphors used on color sets were a lot dimmer than on BW. This was solved around 1965 or so with the introduction of "rare earth phosphors".


Lack of content was also a severe limitation for a very long time. DirecTVs 4 3D channels will proably have more 3D content in one day than what was available for an entire year in color up until the early 60s.


As for the HD transition, SD still looks pretty terrible on most HD sets over 40" or so, and this is still a big factor to lots of folks who are huge fans of channels not yet available in HD.


The 3D capability built into the new 3D sets in no way has a negative effect on any other aspect of their performance and the sets don't cost any more than the comparable 2D models did at introduction last year, in fact most are model-for-model (UN55B700 vs UN55C7000 for example) cheaper. This is analogous to being able to buy a color tv for the same price as last year's BW model back in 1960, with no sacrifice in BW performance, something that definitely wasn't the case.


----------



## Chris_TC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/18685622
> 
> 
> Not really true when talking projection technology at least. After the process you are down to about 40% of the light with no way to compensate.



If I double the projector brightness and end up with 40% then I haven't compensated?


----------



## dovercat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18686869
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone here expects the new 3D to replace 2D HDTV. Where did you get that idea? When I get my new TV I think I'll probably only watch 3D about 20% of the time at the most. But when I do want to watch a 3D movie or a 3D sports event, I will enjoy it.



I get that idea from the number of 3D TV channels launching across Europe. I do not think it is being seen as just for the occasional film, music concert or sporting event. I get the impression it is being trialled as a possible upgrade - replacement to 2D, like HD was for SD. I also get that impression from TV manufactures that are producing 3D TVs I do not think they are being marketed as 3D capable or 3D ready for the occasional 3D program they are being marketed as 3D ready for the future. Many will ad hoc convert 2D to 3D so you can watch in pseudo 3D all day.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve S* /forum/post/18689745
> 
> 
> I too am old enough to remember the "transition" from BW to Color. To say there was no sacrifice when watching BW on a color set is totally false, and was false for at least the first 15 years of color. There were significant factors involved--convergence was one, BW usually had nasty rainbows along edges when shown on a color set until about 1963 or so, 10 years after it's introduction. The picture was also significantly dimmer than on a BW set because the phosphors used on color sets were a lot dimmer than on BW. This was solved around 1965 or so with the introduction of "rare earth phosphors".
> 
> 
> Lack of content was also a severe limitation for a very long time. DirecTVs 4 3D channels will proably have more 3D content in one day than what was available for an entire year in color up until the early 60s.
> 
> 
> As for the HD transition, SD still looks pretty terrible on most HD sets over 40" or so, and this is still a big factor to lots of folks who are huge fans of channels not yet available in HD.
> 
> 
> The 3D capability built into the new 3D sets in no way has a negative effect on any other aspect of their performance and the sets don't cost any more than the comparable 2D models did at introduction last year, in fact most are model-for-model (UN55B700 vs UN55C7000 for example) cheaper. This is analogous to being able to buy a color tv for the same price as last year's BW model back in 1960, with no sacrifice in BW performance, something that definitely wasn't the case.






We both share the same believe. This post is all about facts, its not even about his opinion. Facts don't lie and we are backing our claims by pure facts and with numbers and doing the direct comparison between HD transition and the 3D transition.




The negativity about how we have 0 3D content and how expensive the 3D TV set and 3D blu ray players are hardly an argument, because we have been to the previous HD transition that had all these problems, from a serious lack of content to all the way to a very expensive sets and yet HD made it to mainstream and dominate the market


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/18686332
> 
> 
> Sorry Lee but this just falls right in line with the loss of quality mentioned above. Manufacturers have been moving away from gain ,until now, for PQ reasons. If we go back to gain you lose uniformity,color control,viewing angle flexibility and add screen texture and sparklies that don't need to be there.
> 
> 
> Yes technically you can compensate but you give up five picture quality parameters to get 3D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art



We don't know which way the projector manufacturers are going to go when it comes to projecting 3D. The FPD's have gone with active glasses 3D. The only true full HD PJ shown uses passive glasses 3D (LG). It is a fact that active glasses let more light into the eyes then passive do.


If they choose passive, then you will have to have a silver screen which only works with 3D. This won't affect 2D projection because you will need to have two screens in your theater which is a PIA but necessary.


Without gain on a white screen, you will be giving up brightness which can cause all sorts of problems. But, because 3D will be new for consumers, technology may come to the rescue in the form of either screens that can add gain without affecting PQ and or active glasses that let more light through then todays models. And alo PJ's with a much higher light output. easily done - use two bulbs for 3D and a single for 2D. And no - it won't be cheap. What new products are?


Being an early adopter has great risks. You are either willing to take them and make the compromises necessary or simply wait the years out as technology fixes and removes some of the current "speed bumps" in projecting 3D.


----------



## R Johnson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18691925
> 
> 
> ...Being an early adopter has great risks. You are either willing to take them and make the compromises necessary or simply wait the years out as technology fixes and removes some of the current "speed bumps" in projecting 3D.



Lee,

Presumably you are (or will be) an early adopter of 3D. What type of system will you use -- flat panel, front projection, or ___? What compromises are you willing to take?


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Johnson* /forum/post/18692369
> 
> 
> Lee,
> 
> Presumably you are (or will be) an early adopter of 3D. What type of system will you use -- flat panel, front projection, or ___? What compromises are you willing to take?



I will be going with a Panasonic VT25 58" PDP. As far as I am concerned, I am not making any compromises - other than to pay higher prices this year than those who buy the same panel a year from now - and the high cost of the glasses - high costs are part of being an EA.


----------



## ccool96




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18691925
> 
> 
> The only true full HD PJ shown uses passive glasses 3D (LG).
> 
> .



Not ture. DP Titan 1080P 3D is full HD and uses active glasses technology.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18691925
> 
> 
> Being an early adopter has great risks. You are either willing to take them and make the compromises necessary or simply wait the years out as technology fixes and removes some of the current "speed bumps" in projecting 3D.



I know a lot about early adoption. There is a difference between that, in that you may get something that is a fad , will be supplanted by something better too quickly to warrent the investment or be buggy and this, where you know going in you are throwing away things to get 3D and know in advance what they are.


Gain screens aren't the same as more light , native contrast and flat field uniformity.


Art


----------



## R Johnson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18692456
> 
> 
> I will be going with a Panasonic VT25 58" PDP. As far as I am concerned, I am not making any compromises - other than to pay higher prices this year than those who buy the same panel a year from now - and the high cost of the glasses - high costs are part of being an EA.



Thanks! I think the cost and compromises of a 3D PDP system are quite reasonable, perhaps even quite small.


But front projectors owners see a very different (and likely a very large) set of costs and compromises - as you yourself described. Hence our skepticism/reluctance.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Johnson* /forum/post/18692729
> 
> 
> Thanks! I think the cost and compromises of a 3D PDP system are quite reasonable, perhaps even quite small.
> 
> 
> But front projectors owners see a very different (and likely a very large) set of costs and compromises - as you yourself described. Hence our skepticism/reluctance.



FPTV is a whole nother situation. I have been there, done that. And we can see that the CEMs have yet to get their arms around 3D as far as FPTV - there have been no announcements since CES - over 5 months ago. Yet new PJ's are announced almost daily.


If you want 3D FP - then you will have to step up and pay the piper for the ability to enjoy 3D in your own HT. But no one really knows what will be available and how it will do 3D.


Keep in mind that 3D in and of itself is a compromising tech when it comes to PQ just because of the severe light loss from the glasses. But - it happens using professional equipment - it will happen using consumer based equipment. It's just a fact of 3D the way it is presented today and for the forseeable future.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/18692649
> 
> 
> I know a lot about early adoption. There is a difference between that, in that you may get something that is a fad , will be supplanted by something better too quickly to warrent the investment or be buggy and this, where you know going in you are throwing away things to get 3D and know in advance what they are.
> 
> 
> Gain screens aren't the same as more light , native contrast and flat field uniformity.
> 
> 
> Art



IMO - 3D compromises PQ to such an extent that the concerns of PQ parimeters that hold true for 2D don't really apply with 3D. Plus 3D introduces it's own issues like crosstalk, that don't exist with 2D projection.


You want all the PQ parimeters of 2D with 3D? You can have them - just spend BIG bucks for a semi-professional setup. Doesn't SIM offer their Grand something or other that uses 2 PJ's and the Dolby 3D system (no silver screen)? What is the cost? 100 grand?


----------



## taskman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *display veteran* /forum/post/18439705
> 
> 
> 3-D started in the 50's, made a comeback in the 80's and here it is again for another shot. My opinion is that it has a chance of becoming popular with the gaming folks. It is a totally different experience when playing a video game as opposed to the "jump out at you" effects that are purposely added to 3-D movies. We'll see where it goes. If you don't care for 3-D nobody is going to force you to buy it.video.



Gaming?????????














Oh man, I have to litterlly calm myself down before I discuss the idiocy of 3D. I have been a hardcore gamer since the late 80s, if they think I will put on a pair of stupid glasses so my big display can be shrunk and blurrified(possibly not a word) to a small square, they can go jump off a cliff!


The good news for us gamers is alot of us dont even have HDTV, seriously its true. So game studios will have no choice but to make 2D and 3D games. Why bother anyway, I hope the cost of 3D is such that is not profitable to release games with both formats.


My hates for 3D are simple.


1. Blurry as hell. Try watching the rabbit hole in alice and you cant tell me you could make out any detail on any object, except mabye the piono keys..mabye.

2. Shrinks screens to tiny displays.

3. You can say Avatar was great on 3D and I'll agree with you but does it compare to my 120mhz 1080P LCD TV? Oh not in a million. The 3D version in theater might as well have been SD and I saw both normal and IMAX version.


/rant


----------



## ccool96




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taskman* /forum/post/18693100
> 
> 
> Gaming?????????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh man, I have to litterlly calm myself down before I discuss the idiocy of 3D. I have been a hardcore gamer since the late 80s, if they think I will put on a pair of stupid glasses so my big display can be shrunk and blurrified(possibly not a word) to a small square, they can go jump off a cliff!
> 
> 
> The good news for us gamers is alot of us dont even have HDTV, seriously its true. So game studios will have no choice but to make 2D and 3D games. Why bother anyway, I hope the cost of 3D is such that is not profitable to release games with both formats.
> 
> 
> My hates for 3D are simple.
> 
> 
> 1. Blurry as hell. Try watching the rabbit hole in alice and you cant tell me you could make out any detail on any object, except mabye the piono keys..mabye.
> 
> 2. Shrinks screens to tiny displays.
> 
> 3. You can say Avatar was great on 3D and I'll agree with you but does it compare to my 120mhz 1080P LCD TV? Oh not in a million. The 3D version in theater might as well have been SD and I saw both normal and IMAX version.
> 
> 
> /rant



Obviously you have never gamed on a good 3D setup.


My computer in my theater is running games at full 1080P resoultion @ 120HZ. 60Hz per eye.


Perfectly clear and no image shrinking. 200+ inches!


----------



## ssjLancer

Maybe it has to do with screen distance. Ive definitely noticed that you do lose the big screen experience in 3D theaters, even Imax doesnt seem so huge anymore.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18687057
> 
> 
> 3D Holography may come sooner, rather than later:
> 
> CNN's Jessica Yellin in holographic 3D



Whoever does it right.. it'll probably be the japanese.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/20/j...022-world-cup/


----------



## walford




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ccool96* /forum/post/18693195
> 
> 
> Obviously you have never gamed on a good 3D setup.
> 
> 
> My computer in my theater is running games at full 1080P resoultion @ 120HZ. 60Hz per eye.
> 
> 
> Perfectly clear and no image shrinking. 200+ inches!



What make/model PJ do you have in your Theater and what program are you using on your PC to play 3D games?


----------



## taskman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ccool96* /forum/post/18693195
> 
> 
> Obviously you have never gamed on a good 3D setup.
> 
> 
> My computer in my theater is running games at full 1080P resoultion @ 120HZ. 60Hz per eye.
> 
> 
> Perfectly clear and no image shrinking. 200+ inches!



Really? What video card you using to output 120hz, I'm guessing Nvidia because they are leading the charge. If this is true I might have to look into it but I still don't like the glasses or the 3D movies.


----------



## ccool96




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taskman* /forum/post/18693765
> 
> 
> Really? What video card you using to output 120hz, I'm guessing Nvidia because they are leading the charge. If this is true I might have to look into it but I still don't like the glasses or the 3D movies.




Yes Nvidia 470 but i was using a 260. I just upgraded but both worked. Look at the Nvidia 3D vision system. I am telling you you would be blown away!


There are 1920x1080 120HZ LCD monitors they now support along with many others LCD monitors and projectors.


----------



## ccool96




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *walford* /forum/post/18693741
> 
> 
> What make/model PJ do you have in your Theater and what program are you using on your PC to play 3D games?



I have a DP Titan Reference 1080P projector. I am using a PC with an Nvidia card and the Nvidia 3D vision kit.


----------



## AJSJones

 That looks like a, ahem, nice setup!


Comment from that page



> Quote:
> Imagine a customer investing $40,000 or more on a home theater projector in 2009, only to discover in 2010 that it can’t display off-the-shelf 3D Blu-ray movies! If that customer was not advised of the 3D options that exist today in advance of their purchase, *they will be disappointed, if not downright angry,* with the dealer that they trusted to help them make the best projector purchase decision.



We've seen a bit of that here!


----------



## ccool96

Yes. I saw that quote and how true that is. DP has had 3D projectors for well over a year now. They really have been on the forefront of projector technology for both residential and commercial installations. I only hope to see the 3D technology quickly roll down to their lesser expensive models.


----------



## TVOD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18677768
> 
> 
> Your comments about macroblocking and knee instead of continuing the exponential curve seem way out of place here.
> 
> Do you see Apple and Microsoft running ads during prime time discussing the superiority of their computing codes? See what I mean?
> 
> I might be interested in these technical details if I worked in a field that was in anyway connected to display panels or electronics or home entertainment.I don't.
> 
> Most people aren't. Some topics and threads here lend themselves to these discussions.This thread doesn't.It is a discussion about whether or not consumers are interested in 3D.



Technical discussions may seem superfluous to some, but it helps to know some of the underlying technology to understand 3D's strengths and weakness. A sense of history also helps as many technologies had significant shortcomings when first introduced.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18692941
> 
> 
> IMO - 3D compromises PQ to such an extent that the concerns of PQ parimeters that hold true for 2D don't really apply with 3D. Plus 3D introduces it's own issues like crosstalk, that don't exist with 2D projection.
> 
> 
> You want all the PQ parimeters of 2D with 3D? You can have them - just spend BIG bucks for a semi-professional setup. Doesn't SIM offer their Grand something or other that uses 2 PJ's and the Dolby 3D system (no silver screen)? What is the cost? 100 grand?



Ask Wolfgang Mayer on the forum. He is a 3D lover ,has been for many years and has a 3D set up for his large screen. To get 3D projection now you have to comrpromise 2D.


Art


----------



## gtgray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee* /forum/post/18681879
> 
> 
> Eight percent of men are color blind.



Saying someone is color blind, is a catch all. I have some minor color blindness in my right eye. I can only recognize it with a test. On almost all the test patterns I can recognize the number, but one particular color combination I can not distinguish the embedded character. So saying eight percent of men have some degree of color blindenss is not particularly informative. When people see two images instead of one, perhaps one image partly overlaps the other, these are propblems that make 3D as simulated by television today intolerable for those who are stereoscopically impaired. For the color blind, the TV looks completely natural in color. For those with lazy eye or some other condition 3D at best looks no different than without glasses, at worst it will make them physically ill. For some folks who have epilepsy it may induce seizures.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gtgray* /forum/post/18697370
> 
> 
> Saying someone is color blind, is a catch all. I have some minor color blindness in my right eye. I can only recognize it with a test. On almost all the test patterns I can recognize the number, but one particular color combination I can not distinguish the embedded character. So saying eight percent of men have some degree of color blindenss is not particularly informative. When people see two images instead of one, perhaps one image partly overlaps the other, these are propblems that make 3D as simulated by television today intolerable for those who are stereoscopically impaired. For the color blind, the TV looks completely natural in color. For those with lazy eye or some other condition 3D at best looks no different than without glasses, at worst it will make them physically ill. For some folks who have epilepsy it may induce seizures.



So none of us should be allowed to watch 3D TV just because EVERYONE can't?


----------



## gtgray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18697609
> 
> 
> So none of us should be allowed to watch 3D TV just because EVERYONE can't?



Hey man, you can do whatever the hell you like. I am pointing out there are many different concerns with this technology. You can watch 3D TV until your eyes bug out... I am cool with that if you are.



In fact you can put on a set of Virtual Realtity goggles, and have a gay old time as far as I concerned. Enjoy your 3D!


I take it back, you don't want to go blind, maybe you should only do it until you need glasses!


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18697609
> 
> 
> So none of us should be allowed to watch 3D TV just because EVERYONE can't?



I don't see where he said that in the post. Only that some people will have problems with it.


----------



## tvine2000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gtgray* /forum/post/18698120
> 
> 
> Hey man, you can do whatever the hell you like. I am pointing out there are many different concerns with this technology. You can watch 3D TV until your eyes bug out... I am cool with that if you are.
> 
> 
> 
> In fact you can put on a set of Virtual Realtity goggles, and have a gay old time as far as I concerned. Enjoy your 3D!
> 
> 
> I take it back, you don't want to go blind, maybe you should only do it until you need glasses!



But your post made it sound like fires reply to your post. If that wasn't your point ,what was your point? I know i guy that can't see 3d at all,he's fine with that.We know theres people out there that can't see 3d or 3d causes some side effects,which is yet to be proven.Its just with this thread there some people that feel its a fad etc. and when you read these type of posts over and over again,you start to wonder if behind these posts is just people that want 3d to fail. This is surprizeing because this is THE AVS where you wecome new tecnology's,sure debate it,but have an open mind at the same time. What i'm seeing is 3d for and 3d againist and noting in the middle.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gtgray* /forum/post/18698120
> 
> 
> Hey man, you can do whatever the hell you like. I am pointing out there are many different concerns with this technology. You can watch 3D TV until your eyes bug out... I am cool with that if you are.
> 
> 
> 
> In fact you can put on a set of Virtual Realtity goggles, and have a gay old time as far as I concerned. Enjoy your 3D!
> 
> 
> I take it back, you don't want to go blind, maybe you should only do it until you need glasses!



The point is that you make it seem that 3D isn't worthwhile because some people can't see it. If you've read any of my posts, you will see that I only expect to watch 3D as 20% to 30% of my TV viewing. However, some people keep posting only negative stuff in hopes that they can influence the industry to not do 3D at all, or convince the consumers that it's not worth it. The problem I have with those people is that if they had their way, I wouldn't be able to watch 3D at all. I have no problem with anyone that doesn't want to watch 3D and I would never force anyone to watch it. The beauty of the new 3D tech is that it is a feature that people can CHOOSE to use or not. Some people here think that NO ONE should be able to watch it.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tvine2000* /forum/post/18698242
> 
> 
> But your post made it sound like fires reply to your post. If that wasn't your point ,what was your point? I know i guy that can't see 3d at all,he's fine with that.We know theres people out there that can't see 3d or 3d causes some side effects,which is yet to be proven.Its just with this thread there some people that feel its a fad etc. and when you read these type of posts over and over again,you start to wonder if behind these posts is just people that want 3d to fail. This is surprizeing because this is THE AVS where you wecome new tecnology's,sure debate it,but have an open mind at the same time. What i'm seeing is 3d for and 3d againist and noting in the middle.





He doesn't have a point. If you are color blind you will also have problem with Color TV back in the day. What he is saying doesn't bring anything new or valuable argument to even discuss it further end of story.


----------



## Dude111




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NOOBZ1LLA* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It came to my attention today after visiting my local Sony Style store that 3D TV's are the most pointless mainstream technology ever.



I agree,its complete garbage just wasting bandwidth!! (I also think HDTV is poo!)


Standard DEF tv has always been fine with me


----------



## supernoob

lots of hate in here, but I can't wait until gaming is a couple of generations into 3D. It will be awesome!


----------



## Rammitinski




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dude111* /forum/post/18699073
> 
> 
> I agree,its complete garbage just wasting bandwidth!! (I also think HDTV is poo!)
> 
> 
> Standard DEF tv has always been fine with me



Actually, a lot of the so-called HD around now from the providers doesn't look any better than the best SD signals I was watching 12-15 years ago.


----------



## gtgray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WorldCup2010ESPN* /forum/post/18698696
> 
> 
> He doesn't have a point. If you are color blind you will also have problem with Color TV back in the day. What he is saying doesn't bring anything new or valuable argument to even discuss it further end of story.



I do have a point, there are many obstacles to widespread 3d adoption. The fact is that a significant portion of the population will not be able to see or in some cases physically tolerate 3D it if they can actaully see it will mean more resistance to widespread adoption. I don't think there was the same kinds of resistance to color, or HDTV adoption, it was just a cost and implementation thing.


----------



## gc8710

I guess if I could get a pair of glasses for $10 and if they add it to TVs without screwing up the 2D picture at no added cost, I'd give it a go.That's if the cable or dish offers a 3D package for $10 a month which I can drop at anytime.

If that happens, I'll try it for a while. I'll probably drop the 3D package in a few months do to the fact that I don't use it.

That's the problem with all new optical illusions like those 3D pcitures in the Sunday papers a few years back. They're cool at first, but the thrill wears off real quick.

This is just a more advanced technology but people are still the same.


I hope anyone who wants it can get it.I have no investsments in this particular field, so personally I don't care if it makes it or not.


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gtgray* /forum/post/18703057
> 
> 
> I do have a point, there are many obstacles to widespread 3d adoption. The fact is that a significant portion of the population will not be able to see or in some cases physically tolerate 3D it if they can actaully see it will mean more resistance to widespread adoption. I don't think there was the same kinds of resistance to color, or HDTV adoption, it was just a cost and implementation thing.



I think he meant that your point you make would not slowp the development of 3D. What you say is true and there will be a part of the population who will not adopt it because of what you say. But that fraction, at this point, appears to be smaller than the "glasses-haters" or the "gimmick decriers", if some of the posts here actually represent as many folks as their authors think they do!


----------



## walford

All of the reviews of the TV vendors 2010 top of the line models that also offer 3D as one of their new capabilites have stated that they also have better PQ with 2D content. This is apparently because the faster processors and larger firmware memory capacity required to support 3Denable them to do a better job of upscaling and/or de-interlacing 2D content.


----------



## jlasich




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Timothy91* /forum/post/18441543
> 
> 
> I don't think I've seen an instance where people shun a better looking film, which is like going from the old NTSC to HDTV.



HA, you don't know my father or my brother. My father has his DirecTV and DVD player connected to his HDTV plasma with composite cables. I connected my Blu-ray enabled HTPC to his TV, played the same movie on both his DVD player and my HTPC, and switched the input back and forth and he said he couldn't tell the difference. My brother has yet to subscribe to HD channels through Dish Network because he says there's no difference between HD and SD. Some people are just different.


As far as 3D HDTV goes, I will not be an early adopter it because the screens are too small, but I did watch the Monsters vs. Aliens movie on a Samsung at Sears and it did look good. I will wait until there are more native-3D movies available and decently-priced 1080p 3D projectors. Even if I have to wear glasses to view it, that's okay, as I feel that the technology is one of the most innovative video technologies to come out in a very long time. Watching made-for-3D movies like Avatar and Alice in Wonderland up close with the screen filling my entire field of vision was a whole new movie watching experience.


I am unsure why all the sour grapes in this forum re: 3D. No one is forcing us to buy 3D television sets, and there are still sets available that are non-3D (I just bought a new LG 60PK750 plasma that is not 3D and it has a fantastic picture). If nothing else, it will be a stepping stone to something even better.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jlasich* /forum/post/18704260
> 
> 
> I am unsure why all the sour grapes in this forum re: 3D. No one is forcing us to buy 3D television sets, and there are still sets available that are non-3D (I just bought a new LG 60PK750 plasma that is not 3D and it has a fantastic picture). If nothing else, it will be a stepping stone to something even better.



My beef is if projection manufacturers switch emphasis to 3D sales then the other picture quality parameters that still need work will stagnate.(eg LED light output issues, color management,sequential contrast,ANSI contrast 4K or native scope etc)


Art


----------



## cneely8




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/18704798
> 
> 
> My beef is if projection manufacturers switch emphasis to 3D sales then the other picture quality parameters that still need work will stagnate
> 
> 
> Art



+ 1 if you replace "projection" with "projection/tv/dvd/video stuff"


It's like cell phones. We can surf the web, take crappy pictures, text, etc, but what happened to call quality? You can only cram so much into a box...


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gtgray* /forum/post/18703057
> 
> 
> I do have a point, there are many obstacles to widespread 3d adoption. The fact is that a significant portion of the population will not be able to see or in some cases physically tolerate 3D...



Significant portion? What's your definition of that?


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/18704798
> 
> 
> My beef is if projection manufacturers switch emphasis to 3D sales then the other picture quality parameters that still need work will stagnate.(eg LED light output issues, color management,sequential contrast,ANSI contrast 4K or native scope etc)
> 
> Art



What's the alternative---no 3D at home at all? I read the projector forums constantly(thinking that someday I'll be able to do a home theater) and to me it looks like a whole lot of people want 3D projectors. Obviously 3D projection is way more complicated than just getting a plasma panel, since you have more options, such as one or two projector systems, what color screen to use, and whether to go polarized or active shutter. Anyway, with so many people wanting it, you can only hope that the manufacturers will have better 2D projectors as a byproduct the same way that Panasonic's 3D plasmas are now also better 2D panels.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18707890
> 
> 
> What's the alternative---no 3D at home at all? I read the projector forums constantly(thinking that someday I'll be able to do a home theater) and to me it looks like a whole lot of people want 3D projectors. Obviously 3D projection is way more complicated than just getting a plasma panel, since you have more options, such as one or two projector systems, what color screen to use, and whether to go polarized or active shutter. Anyway, with so many people wanting it, you can only hope that the manufacturers will have better 2D projectors as a byproduct the same way that Panasonic's 3D plasmas are now also better 2D panels.



I never said don't do it ,or folks shouldn't have it. My point is that 2D still needs work and if there is an emphasis placed by the manufacturers on 3D then the push for better 2D is back burner at best.


Art


----------



## RobertR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/18708191
> 
> 
> I never said don't do it ,or folks shouldn't have it. My point is that 2D still needs work and if there is an emphasis placed by the manufacturers on 3D then the push for better 2D is back burner at best.
> 
> 
> Art



If 2D improvements stagnate because of the push for 3D, then that push will not have been worth it.


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RobertR* /forum/post/18708514
> 
> 
> If 2D improvements stagnate because of the push for 3D, then that push will not have been worth it.



I believe they already have. Some manufacturers haven't released the "top-of-the-line" sets they showed last year or at CES. Sony, for one, has yet to release their LX, HX or XBR series, at least in the U.S., and discontinued their NX series. You can also blame the recession for at least part of that issue. I think many manufacturers are counting on 3D to jump start sales.


----------



## gtgray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken H* /forum/post/18707862
> 
> 
> Significant portion? What's your definition of that?



"At least 12% of people have some type of problem with their binocular vision."

http://www.vision3d.com/whycant.html 


That would be aproximately 36 million people in the US. To me that is a significant per cent of the population.


Include epileptics and the wide ranging groups Samsung says maybe affectd and by any reasonable definition that is a significant portion of the population.


One percent of the population has epilepsy.. certainly there is some overlap between the two groups.


The Telegraph has the following article online, headlined:


"Samsung warns of dangers of 3D television"

Samsung has issued a warning about the health risks of watching 3D television."


Snippet:


The world's largest electronics firm has highlighted potential dangers the technology poses to pregnant women, the elderly, children and people with serious medical conditions.


The devices could trigger epileptic fits or cause ailments ranging from altered vision and dizziness to nausea, cramps, convulsions and involuntary movements such as eye or muscle twitching, it (Samsung) said.


Those who have been deprived of sleep or who have been drinking alcohol are also advised to avoid watching 3D television.


The scale of the warning threatens to overshadow the launch of 3D, which has been billed as the future for television by manufacturers and broadcasters.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...elevision.html


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gtgray* /forum/post/18709422
> 
> 
> The Telegraph has the following article online, headlined:
> 
> "Samsungwarns of dangers of 3D television"
> 
> Samsung has issued a warning about the health risks of watching 3D television."
> 
> Snippet:
> 
> The world's largest electronics firm has highlighted potential dangers the technology poses to pregnant women, the elderly, children and people with serious medical conditions.
> 
> The devices could trigger epileptic fits or cause ailments ranging from altered vision and dizziness to nausea, cramps, convulsions and involuntary movements such as eye or muscle twitching, it (Samsung) said.
> 
> Those who have been deprived of sleep or who have been drinking alcohol are also advised to avoid watching 3D television.
> 
> The scale of the warning threatens to overshadow the launch of 3D, which has been billed as the future for television by manufacturers and broadcasters.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...elevision.html



Of course, the April 16, 2010, *Telegraph* article was followed by an April 30, 2010, news item on *WHAT HIFI?*: Samsung backtracks on the dangers of watching 3D TV .



> Quote:
> "The warnings were produced by a different department within Samsung and I think they may be a little too scary," says Lee. "We are looking at modifying the warning labels as they do sound rather serious. But as a manufacturer we must always act responsibly when introducing new technology."


_Should the fact that Samsung's [corporate] left hand apparently does not know what the [corporate] right hand is doing make me *more* or *less* confident about the usefulness of either the *old* or the *new* health warnings...?_


----------



## gtgray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/18709560
> 
> 
> Of course, the April 16, 2010, *Telegraph* article was followed by an April 30, 2010, news item on *WHAT HIFI?*: Samsung backtracks on the dangers of watching 3D TV .
> 
> 
> 
> _Should the fact that Samsung's [corporate] left hand apparently does not know what the [corporate] right hand is doing make me *more* or *less* confident about the usefulness of either the *old* or the *new* health warnings...?_



Pretty funny, softpedaling their previous statement is quite a challenge... and just what is the responsible thing to do?


I have to wonder who will be responsible, the content creators, the broadcasters, Walmart where the BD was purchased or other delivers, or will it be the manufacturers of CE device. Maybe Samsung hopes that if there is enough different enities to blame, the liabilities will be defuse and the endusers who are harmed won't really know who to go after.


Well Monsters did not cause people to convulse but future movie XYZ did cause a lot of convulsive cases and possibly contributed to some deaths so blame the producers, directors and distrubtors of movie XYZ not Samsung. Or better yet blame the people who put the glasses on and got sick, after all they should have heeded the warnings. They were warned weren't they? After all Samsung responsibly put a warnng on the TV set.


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gtgray* /forum/post/18709422
> 
> 
> "At least 12% of people have some type of problem with their binocular vision."



Estimates I've seen range between 2% & 10%. Even at 15%, that isn't enough to prevent widespread acceptance, if the technology supports the expectations. Meaning if 3D is done right.


And yes, all the companies have lawyers burning holes in their (legal) briefs developing 3D warnings. Standard stuff.


This country tolerates over 3000 fatalities every month due to automobiles. Tell me we won't live with a few individuals who get temporary ill effects due to 3D viewing.


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken H* /forum/post/18709823
> 
> 
> This country tolerates over 3000 fatalities every month due to automobiles. Tell me we won't live with a few individuals who get temporary ill effects due to 3D viewing.



The difference here is that the automobile became a commodity long before our society became so litigous. No one sued Henry Ford, Karl Benz or Gottlieb Daimler for inventing the automobile and making it affordable but that was then. Now you can't count the current lawsuits against auto manufacturers if you take off your shoes!


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18710332
> 
> 
> The difference here is that the automobile became a commodity long before our society became so litigous. No one sued Henry Ford, Karl Benz or Gottlieb Daimler for inventing the automobile and making it affordable but that was then. Now you can't count the current lawsuits against auto manufacturers if you take off your shoes!



And again....


Yes, all the companies have lawyers burning holes in their (legal) briefs developing 3D warnings. Standard stuff. It won't change anything.


----------



## TVOD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken H* /forum/post/18709823
> 
> 
> This country tolerates over 3000 fatalities every month due to automobiles.



Wait till the 3D head viewers become popular. And they think that talking on cell phones or texting is dangerous while driving. Sound far fetched? I anticipate anything can happen after stories like this . Maybe Gillette needs to add a written warning. If Samsung makes head viewers they can add the warning too.


----------



## Art Sonneborn

Very specific key words there "car crash while shaving vagina"










Art


----------



## Augerhandle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/18712324
> 
> 
> Very specific key words there "car crash while shaving vagina"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art



Who does she sue? The razor manufacturer, or the shaving cream company?


Which one did NOT put on their labeling "Do not drive or operate heavy machinery while shaving your pubic area"


----------



## SoundChex

There's one 'issue' with _Home3D_ [but *NOT* with _MovieTheater3D_] that had not previously occurred to me (as I have only seen 3D at the movies): You can't lie down (horizontally!) on the sofa and [still] watch 3D TV--both eyes must remain approximately in the same horizontal plane for proper reconstruction of the 3D image! This problem is shared by all forms of 'glasses' 3D and many of the 'glasses free' formats as well.







[Problematically, the per frame data content to support horizontal+vertical full motion parallax is one or two orders of magnitude above (say) HDMI 1.4 max transfer rates! (_Ouch!_)







]


----------



## Augerhandle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/18717155
> 
> 
> There's one 'issue' with _Home3D_ [but *NOT* with _MovieTheater3D_] that had not previously occurred to me (as I have only seen 3D at the movies): You can't lie down (horizontally!) on the sofa and [still] watch 3D TV--both eyes must remain approximately in the same horizontal plane for proper reconstruction of the 3D image! This problem is shared by all forms of 'glasses' 3D and many of the 'glasses free' formats as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Problematically, the per frame data content to support horizontal+vertical full motion parallax is one or two orders of magnitude above (say) HDMI 1.4 max transfer rates! (_Ouch!_)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ]




It's been my experience that I don't lie down on the sofa to watch TV anyway. I lie down to _pretend_ to watch TV while I slip into a nice, comfortable nap!


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/18712324
> 
> 
> Very specific key words there "car crash while shaving vagina"



I bet that must have stung....


----------



## dovercat

If 3D is pointless what about 4D. Avatar in 4D had 30 different real life effects added, from wind blowing and water spraying to laser lights and of course the seat moving. I can see it now not only 7.1 speakers, but a chair that moves and wind blowers, laser lights, water sprayers, etc.. People will really need dedicated home theaters their living rooms would not survive.


----------



## gc8710

I put a quote at the end from Roger Ebert's Alice in Wonderland review.

I agree completely. He's a few years older than me so I'll go with the age preference again.Plus, I regard him as the greatest living movie critic and a man of extreme intelligence.Read his blogs. I'd like to add that ultimately, this is about a way of presenting an art form and the discussion should be about whether or not it enhances or detracts from that presentation.There must be a thread here somewhere where you can talk about refresh rates,etc.


from his review,

_"Burton is above all a brilliant visual artist, and his film is a pleasure to regard; I look forward to admiring it in 2-D, where it will look brighter and more colorful. No artist who can create these images is enhancing them in any way by adding the annoying third dimension. But never mind that."_


That sure sounds like he's saying that 3D subtracts not adds to the viewing fidelity and enjoyment.I agree.


FYI. it looks like this thread is still called"3D HDTV is the most pointless mainstream technology ever. ".

Did it change?


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18726795
> 
> 
> I put a quote at the end from Roger Ebert's Alice in Wonderland review.
> 
> I agree completely. He's a few years older than me so I'll go with the age preference again.Plus, I regard him as the greatest living movie critic and a man of extreme intelligence.Read his blogs. I'd like to add that ultimately, this is about a way of presenting an art form and the discussion should be about whether or not it enhances or detracts from that presentation.There must be a thread here somewhere where you can talk about refresh rates,etc.
> 
> 
> from his review,
> 
> _"Burton is above all a brilliant visual artist, and his film is a pleasure to regard; I look forward to admiring it in 2-D, where it will look brighter and more colorful. No artist who can create these images is enhancing them in any way by adding the annoying third dimension. But never mind that."_
> 
> 
> That sure sounds like he's saying that 3D subtracts not adds to the viewing fidelity and enjoyment.I agree.
> 
> 
> FYI. it looks like this thread is still called"3D HDTV is the most pointless mainstream technology ever. ".
> 
> Did it change?



From the guy that wrote Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixans and Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. His opinion about movies means nothing more than yours or mine. I have a lot more respect for James Cameron for actually making successful films, and last time I looked he was in favor of 3D.


----------



## cbcdesign

Roger Ebert sounds like a luddite to me as do many of the so called 3D haters. Comments such as "annoying third dimension" will do nothing to convince me otherwise.


----------



## gc8710




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cbcdesign* /forum/post/18729144
> 
> 
> Roger Ebert sounds like a luddite to me as do many of the so called 3D haters. Comments such as "annoying third dimension" will do nothing to convince me otherwise.



This is suppose to be a thread about the merits of 3D.

Those who believe that 3D doesn't add to the viewing experience being called "haters".?

Isn't that rather childish?


----------



## gc8710




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18728014
> 
> 
> From the guy that wrote Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixans and Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. His opinion about movies means nothing more than yours or mine. I have a lot more respect for James Cameron for actually making successful films, and last time I looked he was in favor of 3D.



They do to me and millions others.I admire him immensely.


AND...I'll go out on a limb and say that Cameron has a tiny financial interest in the technology.I think he made a few bucks with his product.


----------



## cneely8




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18729264
> 
> 
> AND...I'll go out on a limb and say that Cameron has a tiny financial interest in the technology.I think he made a few bucks with his product.



Cameron's initial 3d comments were not super favorable, then his public statements did a 180 around the same time some kind of partnership was announced between him and a company vested in 3d technology (can't remember who).


Highly suspicious. As in most situations, follow the money and you can figure out what's going on.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cneely8* /forum/post/18729753
> 
> 
> Cameron's initial 3d comments were not super favorable, then his public statements did a 180 around the same time some kind of partnership was announced between him and a company vested in 3d technology (can't remember who).
> 
> 
> Highly suspicious. As in most situations, follow the money and you can figure out what's going on.



The name of the company is Pace as in the Pace/Cameron Fusion 3D camera system.


And I call BS - he was shooting in 3D LONG before he even thought of Avatar. He shot the T2 3D film ride at Universal Studios using 70mm 30 FPS. He also shot Ghosts of the Abyss using IMAX 3D cameras.


----------



## cneely8




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18729857
> 
> 
> The name of the company is Pace as in the Pace/Cameron Fusion 3D camera system.
> 
> 
> And I call BS - .




He went from this:


"...

As Cameron points out, the problem is that most of the movies Hollywood is rushing into 3D weren't originally designed to be in 3D. The result is a 3D experience which is, at best, cheap. For a lot movies, maybe even movies like Iron Man 2, we're better off in 2D."


To this:


""With digital 3D projection, we will be entering a new age of cinema. Audiences will be seeing something which was never technically possible before the age of digital cinema - a stunning visual experience which `turbocharges` the viewing of the biggest, must-see movies. The biggest action, visual effects and fantasy movies will soon be shot in 3D. And all-CG animated films can easily be converted to 3D, without additional cost if it is done as they are made. Soon audiences will associate 3D with the highest level of visual content in the market, and seek out that premium experience."


You are correct - there is some BS going on, but it's from the original Avatard, Cameron himself.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cneely8* /forum/post/18730735
> 
> 
> He went from this:
> 
> 
> "...
> 
> As Cameron points out, the problem is that most of the movies Hollywood is rushing into 3D weren't originally designed to be in 3D. The result is a 3D experience which is, at best, cheap. For a lot movies, maybe even movies like Iron Man 2, we're better off in 2D."



Without seeing the entire article - that looks like him commenting on the 2D to 3D conversions that were done with Alice and Clash.



> Quote:
> To this:
> 
> 
> ""With digital 3D projection, we will be entering a new age of cinema. Audiences will be seeing something which was never technically possible before the age of digital cinema - a stunning visual experience which `turbocharges` the viewing of the biggest, must-see movies. The biggest action, visual effects and fantasy movies will soon be shot in 3D. And all-CG animated films can easily be converted to 3D, without additional cost if it is done as they are made. Soon audiences will associate 3D with the highest level of visual content in the market, and seek out that premium experience."
> 
> 
> You are correct - there is some BS going on, but it's from the original Avatard, Cameron himself.



OK - all that is "factual" as that is what will be happening according to the studios themselves and their future plans.


The studios have found a method of boosting the price of a theater ticket to almost twice it's normal cost.


So IMO - all you are doing is manipulating what he has said to suit your own baseless argument.


LINK? (for your quotes)


----------



## cctvtech

Are we talking about the same James Cameron who "offered" his services to BP to help stop the oil leak in the Gulf; then when BP (rightfully) refused, called them "morons"?


Despite his very real experience filming underwater, I don't understand what he could have contributed to the Gulf mess; unless it would be documenting what's going on down there and getting in the way of the real work being done.


I have no love for BP and think that they should be raked over the coals for their greed and incompetence but I have to marvel at the typical self-serving smugness Mr. Cameron exhibits in both areas.


----------



## Steve S

Opinions on Cameron's ego aside I don't see a conflict between the two quotes.


In the first he says, in effect, that 3D isn't a good idea for films that weren't originally intended to be 3D. In order to get the most from 3D I would think a project would have to be envisioned as a 3D film from the earliest stages of pre-production right thru to editing and sound design. I suspect this is a dig at studios converting already produced 2D films to 3D quickly and cheaply. He himself is busy converting Titanic, but it ain't gonna be an 8 week quicky conversion like some current films.


In the second he's saying that in the future the typical big-budget summer blockbusters will be conceived of an produced from the outset as 3D projects. He says CG films can be effectively converted as they are made-he's not saying they should be converted as a profit-grabbing afterthought.


No doubt he's got some financial interest in the success of future 3D projects, with the work he's put into the technical side of 3D he deserves it, but he's not advocating that all future films be 3D, just the ones whose subject matter and genre lend themselves to it.


----------



## JOHNnDENVER




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18731089
> 
> 
> Are we talking about the same James Cameron who "offered" his services to BP to help stop the oil leak in the Gulf; then when BP (rightfully) refused, called them "morons"?
> 
> 
> Despite his very real experience filming underwater, I don't understand what he could have contributed to the Gulf mess; unless it would be documenting what's going on down there and getting in the way of the real work being done.
> 
> 
> I have no love for BP and think that they should be raked over the coals for their greed and incompetence but I have to marvel at the typical self-serving smugness Mr. Cameron exhibits in both areas.




Never mind he is an accomplished engineer and respected for his deep depth underwater engineering accomplishments. I had a similar reaction at first about him being involved but then thought, "I don't think it can be any worse than what we are see'n right now from BP and our goverment".


----------



## KUJayhawk20659




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JOHNnDENVER* /forum/post/18731451
> 
> 
> Never mind he is an accomplished engineer and respected for his deep depth underwater engineering accomplishments. I had a similar reaction at first about him being involved but then thought, "I don't think it can be any worse than what we are see'n right now from BP and our goverment".



They tried to stuff it with mud. Someone got paid to come up with mud, man anyone could be of some help I guess.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18731089
> 
> 
> Despite his very real experience filming underwater, I don't understand what he could have contributed to the Gulf mess; unless it would be documenting what's going on down there and getting in the way of the real work being done.



He has a huge amount of experience in deep diving subs, and perhaps he could see a way to use a sub to actually have people on the sight to fix it. Of course it would probably be the deep diving Russian subs, and that might be not be good politically for Obama or BP.


----------



## gc8710

This is not a joke.I'm sure many of you are familiar with it.

From what I'm reading the effectiveness of this varies a lot between individuals.It is extremely effective for me but I've talked to many who think it's insane.The best part is that it costs nothing.

I'm talking about watching a 2D moving image with one eye covered.

For me a very pronounced 3D effect takes place after a few seconds for my brain to get acclimated.It's largely dependent on the relative motion between two or more moving images, but can also be imagined with static images at times.

There are many physiological theories for this, but why it's totally unnoticeable for some and very vivid for others apparently is a mystery.

However , the lack of detail lost by cutting your vision by 50% more than makes up for whatever enjoyment is gained by this illusion, Very similar to what occurs with the technology being discussed here.

Also like the 3D talked about here, you wouldn't want to watch a whole movie with one eye.


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/18732251
> 
> 
> This is not a joke.I'm sure many of you are familiar with it.
> 
> From what I'm reading the effectiveness of this varies a lot between individuals.It is extremely effective for me but I've talked to many who think it's insane.The best part is that it costs nothing.
> 
> I'm talking about watching a 2D moving image with one eye covered.
> 
> For me a very pronounced 3D effect takes place after a few seconds for my brain to get acclimated.It's largely dependent on the relative motion between two or more moving images, but can also be imagined with static images at times.
> 
> There are many physiological theories for this, but why it's totally unnoticeable for some and very vivid for others apparently is a mystery.
> 
> However , the lack of detail lost by cutting your vision by 50% more than makes up for whatever enjoyment is gained by this illusion, Very similar to what occurs with the technology being discussed here.
> 
> Also like the 3D talked about here, you wouldn't want to watch a whole movie with one eye.



Anyone's brain with a lifetime of real world 3D viewing experience can easily simulate 3D with one eye perspective. This has nothing to do with actually getting two eye perspective and the resulting effect.


I would suggest you close both eyes and simply imagine everything.


----------



## Augerhandle

Or try this.









(click image to enlarge)

Attachment 177257 



A variable speed motor mounts in a helmet behind the viewer disc, so the unit can match ANY manufactuer's frame rate.


----------



## dovercat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JOHNnDENVER* /forum/post/18731451
> 
> 
> Never mind he is an accomplished engineer and respected for his deep depth underwater engineering accomplishments. I had a similar reaction at first about him being involved but then thought, "I don't think it can be any worse than what we are see'n right now from BP and our goverment".



When I read about Cameron calling BP morons for not jumping at the chance of getting his expertise it made me think of the cult of celebrity and the inability to separate Hollywood from reality. It reminded me of when Madonna was snubbed for suggesting Kabbalah water as the solution to radioactive waste. At least Cameron is experienced at deep sea filming and exploration, so maybe a bit less deluded if just as naive and egocentric to view himself as a world expert whose advise and help should be sought in a national emergency.


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken H* /forum/post/18732758
> 
> 
> Anyone's brain with a lifetime of real world 3D viewing experience can easily simulate 3D with one eye perspective. This has nothing to do with actually getting two eye perspective and the resulting effect.
> 
> 
> I would suggest you close both eyes and simply imagine everything.



When I was in high school, the father of a friend only had one eye. He had adjusted to that condition so well over the years that he could tell depth and distance. Darned if I know how but I believe that is relatively common.


----------



## Chris_TC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18731089
> 
> 
> Despite his very real experience filming underwater, I don't understand what he could have contributed to the Gulf mess;



Apparently BP are too dumb to operate gear at those depths. But why bring in help? After so many failures, they may at some point figure out a solution by pure chance.


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18734196
> 
> 
> When I was in high school, the father of a friend only had one eye. He had adjusted to that condition so well over the years that he could tell depth and distance. Darned if I know how but I believe that is relatively common.



If a person has experience processing visual info with two eyes, the brain gets acclimated to what things should look like. If they lost one eye, the brain would know from experience how to recreate the 3D perception.


Even with one eye worth of experience the brain would at some point make simulated 3D calculations.


----------



## cneely8




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18730796
> 
> 
> So IMO - all you are doing is manipulating what he has said to suit your own baseless argument.
> 
> 
> LINK? (for your quotes)



Whatever, Lee. Look outside avs and open your eyes. _Inside_ avsforum, where the early adopters and av freaks reside, the opinion is about 70% against or nuetral on 3d. _Outside_ technical forums, where the real people reside, it's pretty much apathy regarding 3d in the home.


In fact, it's still near apathy regarding proper HD in the home, and we don't even have that right yet.


As for links, just Google using key parts of the quotes there, you'll pull up the articles.


As for _your_ motivations, can you answer truthfully that you make no money whatsoever on anything relating to 3d technology or entertainment?


You are either the most passionate blindly-focused-on-one-issue fanboy I've ever encountered on the internet (you're pumping 3d all over the net, not just here) or you have a vested interest in pumping 3d at each and every opportunity and that's why you jump in every discussion to defend it.


I'm curious what that real motivation is - Care to share by answering the question above about no financial gain linked to 3d equipment, success, or technology whatsoever ?


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cneely8* /forum/post/18735483
> 
> _Inside_ avsforum, where the early adopters and av freaks reside, the opinion is about 70% against or nuetral on 3d.



Where do you get those numbers? Certainly quite few people have posted very strong opinions on something that hasn't really happened yet.


I'm currently open-minded until I see some evidence one way or another on how well its implementation works in my home theater (on a 110" screen). If it looks great/good, I'll be positive. Am I neutral now - in your categorization?

I'd like for it to work well and certainly would enjoy watching quite a few things in 3D if it's done well. If it's done poorly or gimmicky and intrusive, I'll either switch to 2D or switch off completely....


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cneely8* /forum/post/18735483
> 
> 
> Whatever, Lee. Look outside avs and open your eyes. _Inside_ avsforum, where the early adopters and av freaks reside, the opinion is about 70% against or nuetral on 3d. _Outside_ technical forums, where the real people reside, it's pretty much apathy regarding 3d in the home.
> 
> 
> In fact, it's still near apathy regarding proper HD in the home, and we don't even have that right yet.
> 
> 
> As for links, just Google using key parts of the quotes there, you'll pull up the articles.
> 
> 
> As for _your_ motivations, can you answer truthfully that you make no money whatsoever on anything relating to 3d technology or entertainment?
> 
> 
> You are either the most passionate blindly-focused-on-one-issue fanboy I've ever encountered on the internet (you're pumping 3d all over the net, not just here) or you have a vested interest in pumping 3d at each and every opportunity and that's why you jump in every discussion to defend it.
> 
> 
> I'm curious what that real motivation is - Care to share by answering the question above about no financial gain linked to 3d equipment, success, or technology whatsoever ?





He is early adopter and have the experience from his old age (lol) that have witness the transition from Black & white to Color TV and from Color TV to HD transition. He does base his opinion based on the past facts and previous transition. He also learned that things takes time before becoming mainstream. So in all he have the patience, knowledge and i believe he does make more sense than a lot of people.


----------



## WorldCup2010ESPN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AJSJones* /forum/post/18735556
> 
> 
> Where do you get those numbers? Certainly quite few people have posted very strong opinions on something that hasn't really happened yet.
> 
> 
> I'm currently open-minded until I see some evidence one way or another on how well its implementation works in my home theater (on a 110" screen). If it looks great/good, I'll be positive. Am I neutral now - in your categorization?
> 
> I'd like for it to work well and certainly would enjoy watching quite a few things in 3D if it's done well. If it's done poorly or gimmicky and intrusive, I'll either switch to 2D or switch off completely....





Nothing wrong to stay neutral. I think it is best thing to do in most cases.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cneely8* /forum/post/18735483
> 
> _Inside_ avsforum, where the early adopters and av freaks reside, the opinion is about 70% against or nuetral on 3d. _Outside_ technical forums, where the real people reside, it's pretty much apathy regarding 3d in the home.
> 
> 
> In fact, it's still near apathy regarding proper HD in the home, and we don't even have that right yet.



A poll that was taken BEFORE there were any 3D channels available, only 2 brands of TVs in the stores, one 3D Blu-ray movie available, and a choice indicating that there are NO Standards. I'll say it again. I think that the vast amount of people here that are against it are people that feel like they just recently spent a lot of money for their current setups, and they don't want to feel like what they have isn't state of the art. They don't want to feel pressured in any way to have to upgrade to 3D. Guess what, none of those people ever have to watch 3D, even if they someday buy a 3D TV. Yet the fact that you say they are "against" it means that they don't want anyone else to have it either. WOW! Also, you seem to think that adding 3D to a TV somehow keeps the manufacturers from trying to improve the TVs overall. Adding 3D and improving the 2D picture are not exclusive. The 3D tech adds very little new technology to what we've had for the past couple of years, ever since we've had sets that would do 120Hz. To think that they would stop trying to improve TVs is ludicrous. Lets see the results of a similar poll in a couple of years. I'm fairly sure that some posters here that are against it now will be certainly more accepting of it then.


----------



## cneely8




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18735626
> 
> 
> I think that the vast amount of people here that are against it are people that feel like they just recently spent a lot of money for their current setups, and they don't want to feel like what they have isn't state of the art.



The last investment I made in my HT was a very NOT state of the art cheapo HD65 for 

The replacement cost of upgrading to a new and better projector would not break the bank or be a barrier to my adoption of 3D.


My last "significant" purchase for my HT room was a $65 open-box Sony upconverting DVD player, about 2 years ago.


My next one is likely to be a PS3. For the 3d gaming? nope, don't care.


One of the main reasons I started replying in these threads was that I was tired of lurking and reading the same stuff, over and over, from the same few people, on an almost daily basis, often multiple times a day, and watching them jump in on any thread that didn't portray 3d in a positive light.


Certainly not because I can't upgrade if I felt the urge.


----------



## AJSJones

Ah, old polls are even less use than old newspapers


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AJSJones* /forum/post/18735669
> 
> 
> Ah, old polls are even less use than old newspapers



Not true! Old newspapers have lots of uses:

*Eighty Uses for Old Newspaper*

Eighty Uses for Old Newspaper


----------



## AJSJones

But the news content is useless, even if you print them out. Wait, .... , you mean the _actual ones made of paper_? They're good for carbon in the compost pile too, just like old polls. I thought we AVSers were all electronic by now


----------



## Augerhandle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cneely8* /forum/post/18735660
> 
> 
> The last investment I made in my HT was a very NOT state of the art cheapo HD65 for
> 
> ...My last "significant" purchase for my HT room was a $65 open-box Sony upconverting DVD player, about 2 years ago.
> 
> 
> My next one is likely to be a PS3. For the 3d gaming? nope, don't care...



There were 3 DVDs at the local video store when I bought my first DVD player. I later replaced it with an up-converting (and recording) DVD player (that I gave away to my ex about three years ago), as I've been updating my system routinely along the way.


In my world, I'm thinking "why are you just now considering a PS3/Blu-ray player?" But I know the reason. This is the stage you are in, regarding home theater. There is nothing wrong with that at all.


Different people are on different points of the curve. I have had a 3D Ready DLP HDTV, a 7.1 home theater system, an HDDVD player, HD cable, and a PS3 in my home for many years now. Other people have more or less, bigger or smaller; according to their wants, needs, and pocketbooks.


While 3D Blu-ray, gaming, and cable TV may be the next step for me, it will be several months or years before some people upgrade. This is only natural. For example, I have yet to upgrade my cell phone for internet and email. The cost isn't worth it, _to me_.


Wasn't it in _Wall-E_ that they said that "the new red is blue"?


The new HD is 3D. Fad or not. There is no reason for people to take sides. To buy, or not to buy. It's as simple as that. As usual, the almighty dollar will decide.


I personally am looking forward to everything that is coming; for as Chance, _the Gardener_ said in _Being There_, "I like to watch".


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cneely8* /forum/post/18735660
> 
> 
> The last investment I made in my HT was a very NOT state of the art cheapo HD65 for
> 
> The replacement cost of upgrading to a new and better projector would not break the bank or be a barrier to my adoption of 3D.
> 
> 
> My last "significant" purchase for my HT room was a $65 open-box Sony upconverting DVD player, about 2 years ago.
> 
> 
> My next one is likely to be a PS3. For the 3d gaming? nope, don't care.
> 
> 
> One of the main reasons I started replying in these threads was that I was tired of lurking and reading the same stuff, over and over, from the same few people, on an almost daily basis, often multiple times a day, and watching them jump in on any thread that didn't portray 3d in a positive light.
> 
> 
> Certainly not because I can't upgrade if I felt the urge.



Did you even read my post? I don't expect you to upgrade. I don't expect anyone to upgrade. I don't think it would be wise at all for anyone to buy a new 3D TV now unless they are in the market for a new TV anyway. You come in this thread and say that we don't even have proper HD in the home yet like you really care about quality, then you admit that you don't even have a Blu-ray player yet. Here's why I like 3D. I was at a friend's house a few years ago and he had a home theater with 35mm projectors. We watched The Lost Boys which was a nice anamorphic wide screen movie, and then he asked me if I wanted to watch House of Wax in 3D. I said I didn't like the red/blue glasses and he told me that House of Wax was released in the 50s' with polarized glasses, and that he had a dual stripe print. I thought it looked fantastic, and I realized that there was no way we would ever be able to see it in 3D on a video screen--unless it was the crappy anaglyph(red/blue) glasses version. Now we actually have the opportunity to see the 3D films the way they were meant to be seen---and some people are actually against it. I don't expect 3D to ever replace HD, but just be an added feature. I will probably only watch 3D 20% to 30% of the time, and I realize that some 3D will be bad and some will be great just like it is with HD now. I am enthusiastic about it, but that's because I want the choice, and evidently there are a lot of people on the forum now that don't want us to have 3D TV. In a few months there will be a lot of positive posts about 3D (once there are actual channels and 3D Blu-ray movies). That will cause even more people to get excited about it, and evidently it will make some people angry.


----------



## Buckeyefan

3D will flop even worse than HD DVD, or Blu ray for that matter. We've got two BD players and unless I update the firmware every few months, new releases never seem to play correctly. It frustrates the daylights out of everyone in the family. We just laugh any more, it's so rediculous. The wife bought Alice in Wonderlan in BD, with a digital and SD copy. Daughter had 2 friends over tonight, and the BD disc would not play in our Sony BD player, of which I've updated the firmware at least 4 times. I see there's been another FW release in April. Missed it. So they were forced to watch it in SD. Perfect.


Saw Avatar in 3D on an IMAX screen when it came out. Very cool. Just rented it tonight from Redbox in SD (can't rent Blu ray on Redbox - proof Blu ray has not taken off yet for the masses). The kids, wife and I enjoyed it fine in 2D, in SD upconverted on our flat screen. Wasn't even in HD, and it looked very good. The surround sound adds so much to a movie, I think we all forgot we weren't watching it in 1080p. The SVS sub doesn't hurt.










We, like many here, do very well financially. But I for one will never pay $150 for a pair of mfg. specific 3D glasses to watch a handful of movies. Not to mention having to rebuy a flat screen, a Blu ray player, and wait months for new titles to come out (and not being able to pick them up conveniently at Redbox).


The industry did it all wrong. If they wanted to push 3D, it needed to be glasses free, using existing technology. Since they've not found a way to do it, it will never catch on to the main stream. Early adopters enjoy. I enjoyed my HD DVD player for a year. Quit buying HD DVD movies and now it collects dust at my folks house. Some things work out, some don't. This definitely won't.


----------



## Rammitinski




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18735626
> 
> 
> I'm fairly sure that some posters here that are against it now will be certainly more accepting of it then.



The only understandable thing I can see some people having to be "angry" about is if the provider's signals become even more watered down to accomodate it.


Otherwise, I don't get the impression that anybody "doesn't want anyone to have their 3D".


----------



## Rammitinski




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Buckeyefan* /forum/post/18736842
> 
> 
> The wife bought Alice in Wonderlan in BD, with a digital and SD copy.



?


----------



## Augerhandle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Buckeyefan* /forum/post/18736842
> 
> 
> 3D will flop even worse than HD DVD, or Blu ray for that matter. We've got two BD players and unless I update the firmware every few months, new releases never seem to play correctly. It frustrates the daylights out of everyone in the family. We just laugh any more, it's so rediculous. The wife bought Alice in Wonderlan in BD, with a digital and SD copy. Daughter had 2 friends over tonight, and the BD disc would not play in our Sony BD player, of which I've updated the firmware at least 4 times. I see there's been another FW release in April. Missed it. So they were forced to watch it in SD. Perfect.










Updates take 15 minutes. They keep machines up to date with the latest features, so they are a _good_ thing. I've never had any problems with a disc, ever.



> Quote:
> Saw Avatar in 3D on an IMAX screen when it came out. Very cool. Just rented it tonight from Redbox in SD (can't rent Blu ray on Redbox - proof Blu ray has not taken off yet for the masses). The kids, wife and I enjoyed it fine in 2D, in SD upconverted on our flat screen. Wasn't even in HD, and it looked very good. The surround sound adds so much to a movie, I think we all forgot we weren't watching it in 1080p. The SVS sub doesn't hurt.



I saw it in Blu-ray. Rented for $1.00 at the local Family Video. It was awesome. To each their own.



> Quote:
> We, like many here, do very well financially. But I for one will never pay $150 for a pair of mfg. specific 3D glasses to watch a handful of movies.



And you don't have to if you choose not to. I think it's wrong to pay over $50 per month for cable or dish, or the $80 and more people are spending on cell phone plans. Not to mention the outrageous price of internet service. You pay, or you don't play.



> Quote:
> Not to mention having to rebuy a flat screen, a Blu ray player, and wait months for new titles to come out (and not being able to pick them up conveniently at Redbox).



Again, you pay, or you don't play. I guess I got lucky. Although I still own an HDDVD player, my PS3 plays Blu-rays, and the new 3D games. Soon (with another one of those pesky firmware updates) it will play 3D Blu-rays. My 2008 TV is 3D Ready, so for $99 in new hardware, it displays in 3D. The _universal_ 3D glasses, which work with anyone's 3DTV, are expected to list at $129 so I will eventually buy them for under $100 on Amazon.com. So, I'm in the game for under $200. And I've already waited 3 years for the tech to catch up. I can wait some more. If it flops, it flops. We have plenty of time.



> Quote:
> The industry did it all wrong.



You are not ready to buy new equipment yet. There should be all the content you want, right about the time you are in the market for a new TV and/or player. So the industry wouldn't have done it all wrong.



> Quote:
> If they wanted to push 3D, it needed to be glasses free, using existing technology. Since they've not found a way to do it, it will never catch on to the main stream. Early adopters enjoy. I enjoyed my HD DVD player for a year. Quit buying HD DVD movies and now it collects dust at my folks house. Some things work out, some don't. This definitely won't.



There is no viable glasses-free technology, so there is no mainstream to catch on to. We all took a risk when we bought HDDVD, and I don't regret it one bit. I would make the same choice again based on the quality alone. I still use it as an upconverting DVD player for all my SD DVDs. When I saw that I had backed the wrong horse though, I went out and bought the best Blu-ray value on the market at the time, the PS3. And now it's paying off in spades.


That being said, I envy everyone who is _not_ upgrading equipment right now. If I didn't already have most of the equipment needed, I would patiently wait for the right time to upgrade, then pull the triggger. Being 3D ready now, I have to sit and wait to be spoon fed content for the next year or so. And suffer if it fails, as you say.


I'm sure there are people just now getting into Blu-ray. As the poster cneely8 may do. Guess what? When they go to the video store, the shelves have Blu-ray discs on them. I gotta think the early adopters have something to do with that. When I got into HD, I begged my local video store on a regular basis to stock something in HD, and then Blu-ray, as the shelves were empty of content for over a year.


I'm afraid I will be in the same boat again for the foreseeable future with 3D. But then that is _my_ choice, and you have _yours_.


The market will determine the outcome. If people buy, it will succeed. If they don't, it won't. You and I are not going to convince people one way or the other. People will see it and like it, or they will see it and go "meh".


Time will tell.


----------



## wired1

Is the fact that my new 3D TV makes me SUPER happy enough? I mean seriously, I get both sides of the "argument" here, but both sides are kind of pointless.


Why try to sway someone to your point of view? Especially when there is no data available to justify or support either side? Unless you spin it, weight the info to unjustly support your view, or otherwise inflate a statement or piece of data spit out by a journalist or industry person who, too, is just stating an opinion.


Give it 12 months and see where 3D is.


Until then, take a breath







And if you don't like it, don't buy it. But also, don't bash those who are enjoying it. For me, if all I ever got to see was Monsters vs. Aliens in 3D I would be happy. I bought my TV for how well it does 2D and the 3D is ICING. Still, I think it works great and hope to see it succeed










Anyway, thems my pennies. Thanks for listening.


----------



## Buckeyefan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rammitinski* /forum/post/18736925
> 
> 
> ?



Sorry - Wonderland.


Blu ray disc, digital copy disc, and a standard definition dvd . 3 discs.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Buckeyefan* /forum/post/18736842
> 
> 
> 3D will flop even worse than HD DVD, or Blu ray for that matter. We've got two BD players and unless I update the firmware every few months, new releases never seem to play correctly. It frustrates the daylights out of everyone in the family. We just laugh any more, it's so rediculous. The wife bought Alice in Wonderlan in BD, with a digital and SD copy. Daughter had 2 friends over tonight, and the BD disc would not play in our Sony BD player, of which I've updated the firmware at least 4 times. I see there's been another FW release in April. Missed it. So they were forced to watch it in SD. Perfect.



BD a flop? It celebrates 4 years this month. In the year of 2009, it generated $1.5 billion. It is now in 17% of all USA households. Hardly a flop.











> Quote:
> Saw Avatar in 3D on an IMAX screen when it came out. Very cool. Just rented it tonight from Redbox in SD (can't rent Blu ray on Redbox - proof Blu ray has not taken off yet for the masses). The kids, wife and I enjoyed it fine in 2D, in SD upconverted on our flat screen. Wasn't even in HD, and it looked very good. The surround sound adds so much to a movie, I think we all forgot we weren't watching it in 1080p. The SVS sub doesn't hurt.



Guess you missed the Redbox announcement? They are commencing with their BD program starting next month. BDs will be available for rent at $1.50/night



> Quote:
> We, like many here, do very well financially. But I for one will never pay $150 for a pair of mfg. specific 3D glasses to watch a handful of movies. Not to mention having to rebuy a flat screen, a Blu ray player, and wait months for new titles to come out (and not being able to pick them up conveniently at Redbox).



Then you are not an early adopter. You like many will wait till prices fall. No problem with that. To each is own.



> Quote:
> The industry did it all wrong. If they wanted to push 3D, it needed to be glasses free, using existing technology. Since they've not found a way to do it, it will never catch on to the main stream. Early adopters enjoy. I enjoyed my HD DVD player for a year. Quit buying HD DVD movies and now it collects dust at my folks house. Some things work out, some don't. This definitely won't.



Auto 3D (no glasses) is an immature technology riddled with problems. No one would buy it at it's current state of progress.


Stereoscopic 3D - the 3D with glasses, for the home is the same S3D people are seeing in the theaters. Just presented a little differently.


----------



## Deja Vu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18737439
> 
> 
> BD a flop? It celebrates 4 years this month. In the year of 2009, it generated $1.5 billion. It is now in 17% of all USA households. Hardly a flop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you missed the Redbox announcement? They are commencing with their BD program starting next month. BDs will be available for rent at $1.50/night
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are not an early adopter. You like many will wait till prices fall. No problem with that. To each is own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Auto 3D (no glasses) is an immature technology riddled with problems. No one would buy it at it's current state of progress.
> 
> 
> Stereoscopic 3D - the 3D with glasses, for the home is the same S3D people are seeing in the theaters. Just presented a little differently.



BD is a flop! I only watch BD now, but hardly any one I know in the "real" world does. The head of the BDA said only a few years ago that BD would dominate DVD by 2011! Seven months to go. I really hope he didn't put any money on this. How is BD being marketed now? Simple, include a DVD copy and a digital copy. I also have problems with playback because of the constant updates - very frustrating. BD, when compared to the marketing hype, is a dismal failure, but I love it anyway. Maybe 3D can give it some new life, but I doubt it. Let's face it we're lucky to have the niche products we do have. Was LD a success? Ask most people what it was and they most likely couldn't tell you. Ask someone here who was into it big time and they'll tell you it was a huge success because in their narrow little world they could buy it and play it and that's what counted to them. I'm not saying LD and BD are comparable, however, because we support something doesn't make it a success, well unless you define success to suit your own needs. My son has a P3 but never uses it for BD playback, so the fact that households have it doesn't mean they use it.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Deja Vu* /forum/post/18737660
> 
> 
> BD is a flop! I only watch BD now, but hardly any one I know in the "real" world does. The head of the BDA said only a few years ago that BD would dominate DVD by 2011! Seven months to go. I really hope he didn't put any money on this. How is BD being marketed now? Simple, include a DVD copy and a digital copy. I also have problems with playback because of the constant updates - very frustrating. BD, when compared to the marketing hype, is a dismal failure, but I love it anyway. Maybe 3D can give it some new life, but I doubt it. Let's face it we're lucky to have the niche products we do have. Was LD a success? Ask most people what it was and they most likely couldn't tell you. Ask someone here who was into it big time and they'll tell you it was a huge success because in their narrow little world they could buy it and play it and that's what counted to them. I'm not saying LD and BD are comparable, however, because we support something doesn't make it a success, well unless you define success to suit your own needs. My son has a P3 but never uses it for BD playback, so the fact that households have it doesn't mean they use it.



Let me know when a corporate executive becomes Nostradamaus will you.










So what is the definition of a successful format? IMO - one that grows each year both in usage, titles and in revenue. BD has done that. LD failed to do that. It was a niche format for 20 years.


Keep in mind that almost 50% of USA HH's don't have an HDTV yet. No reason to buy into BD without an HDTV.


----------



## Rammitinski




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Buckeyefan* /forum/post/18737328
> 
> 
> Sorry - Wonderland.



No - I just meant wouldn't a BR disc or SD DVD also be digital? Just thought the terminology was sort of weird.


----------



## walford

All standard DVDs are encoded in NTSC 480i SD analog format.

Almost all 2D Blue Rays are encoded in standard digital MPEG2 at 1080p/24 resolution which means they play best on a 1080p HDTV.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *walford* /forum/post/18738870
> 
> 
> All standard DVDs are encoded in NTSC 480i SD analog format.













MPEG2 is the most common compression codec - which is digital and not analog.




> Quote:
> Almost all 2D Blue Rays are encoded in MPEG2 at 1080p/24 resolution which means they play best on a 1080p HDTV.













Both VC-1 and AVC/MPEG4 are the most common compression codecs used.

http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/Stats.php


----------



## john barlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Deja Vu* /forum/post/18737660
> 
> 
> BD is a flop! I only watch BD now, but hardly any one I know in the "real" world does. The head of the BDA said only a few years ago that BD would dominate DVD by 2011! Seven months to go. I really hope he didn't put any money on this. How is BD being marketed now? Simple, include a DVD copy and a digital copy. I also have problems with playback because of the constant updates - very frustrating. BD, when compared to the marketing hype, is a dismal failure, but I love it anyway. Maybe 3D can give it some new life, but I doubt it. Let's face it we're lucky to have the niche products we do have. Was LD a success? Ask most people what it was and they most likely couldn't tell you. Ask someone here who was into it big time and they'll tell you it was a huge success because in their narrow little world they could buy it and play it and that's what counted to them. I'm not saying LD and BD are comparable, however, because we support something doesn't make it a success, well unless you define success to suit your own needs. My son has a P3 but never uses it for BD playback, so the fact that households have it doesn't mean they use it.



He just might have made that statement before the world economic meltdown. I love BD and I think eventually the masses will plunk down the money to join the party. It's worth it for the lossless audio tracks alone.


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Deja Vu* /forum/post/18737660
> 
> 
> BD is a flop! I only watch BD now, but hardly any one I know in the "real" world does. The head of the BDA said only a few years ago that BD would dominate DVD by 2011! Seven months to go. I really hope he didn't put any money on this. How is BD being marketed now? Simple, include a DVD copy and a digital copy.



In reality, this is an indicator that BD is becoming a "mature" product. The early strategy for BD (i.e., unplayable on an SD DVD player) was designed in part to encourage earlier purchase of a BD player ("rewarding the BD player CEM") or to permit BD player purchase deferral by allowing the customer to purchase an _*SD DVD only*_ SKU now, plus a _*BD*_ SKU later, after purchasing a BD player ("rewarding the content provider with a double purchase"). But this strategy made the retailer the loser: Retailers had just recaptured shelf space by elimination of VHS (and HD DVD), and they now had to forecast stock levels for the complementary [and essentially negatively auto correlated] sales volumes for the SD and BD versions of the same movie.


One _*common SD+BD*_ SKU for each movie means that retailers can reduce total SD and BD shelf space, inventory holding cost, "halve" the number of future SKUs, and decrease "at risk for obsolescence" video inventory. It also means that the CEMs and content providers believe that customers will buy BD players as a natural replacement for SD players, and that there are 'easier' profits [from BD] to be made by cost and margin control than through market enlargement.


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *walford* /forum/post/18738870
> 
> 
> All standard DVDs are encoded in NTSC 480i SD analog format. Almost all 2D Blue Rays are encoded in standard digital MPEG2 at 1080p/24 resolution which means they play best on a 1080p HDTV.



With LG's recent "announcement" of an 84-inch 3DTV with 3840x2160 resolution sure to start some interesting debates on the issues of upscaling 3D sources (1080 or lower resolution) to [3D] display at 2160p, LG's graphic comparing the significance of individual pixels on 720, 1080 and 2160 displays raises another interesting 2D question: _How different will the SD and BD versions of the same movie look when both are unscaled to 2160?_


----------



## ssjLancer

So aziz ansari the comedian hosting the mtv movie awards(you may also remember him from his rant on fake imax theaters) kinda thrashed 3dtv today in his monologue. It was something like

'I love 3D but I might be a little biased cause I also think headaches are dope.'

'People say 3D look so real and I dont get it, Julia and Julia looks real. Avatar, alice in wonderland, and clash of the titans look like fricken videogames.'


Probably wont affect 3D adoption but I thought it was interesting..


----------



## cneely8




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ssjLancer* /forum/post/18740519
> 
> 
> So aziz ansari the comedian hosting the mtv movie awards(you may also remember him from his rant on fake imax theaters) kinda thrashed 3dtv today in his monologue. It was something like
> 
> 'I love 3D but I might be a little biased cause I also think headaches are dope.'
> 
> 'People say 3D look so real and I dont get it, Julia and Julia looks real. Avatar, alice in wonderland, and clash of the titans look like fricken videogames.'
> 
> 
> Probably wont affect 3D adoption but I thought it was interesting..



That is interesting, especially given the target demographic. Given the oft-quoted figures in this forum around how few people are affected by side effects, can you tell us how strong was the crowd reaction? 10%? Pretty hearty from most? If they are as rare as folks claim, I'd think most people wouldn't have understood it.


----------



## Low Tech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ssjLancer* /forum/post/18740519
> 
> 
> So aziz ansari the comedian hosting the mtv movie awards(you may also remember him from his rant on fake imax theaters) kinda thrashed 3dtv today in his monologue. It was something like
> 
> 'I love 3D but I might be a little biased cause I also think headaches are dope.'
> 
> 'People say 3D look so real and I dont get it, Julia and Julia looks real. Avatar, alice in wonderland, and clash of the titans look like fricken videogames.'
> 
> 
> Probably wont affect 3D adoption but I thought it was interesting..



Well it looks to me that Hollywood knows most of us have home theaters... were I live everyone has a home theater.


Now that times are lean and people will only go see blockbuster movies... hehehehe!


3D has become the movie theaters only chance of survival as 3 of our theaters closed down, leaving us with just 2 cinaplexs and a hand full of small theaters.


I posted in an other thread... the only 3D movie(s) I am looking forward to is Ridley Scott's Alien prequals.


He is forcing production to reinvent 3D because is not good enough for true black levels of HD, and also modern 3D imaging causes too much edge emphasis as in video games.


Ridley is the only modern SiFi director that does not like to use computer animation or modify images beyond the fluid detail of natural details.


If anything Ridley is not try'n to one up James Cameron, he is allowing HD and 3D to work together as one, in a natural way.


To me 3D should not bring the image into your lap... it should make the image start on the screen and go further back as if your peering into a panarama...


Though I will accept a few things fly'n by or climbing out of the picture to fall below your knees. Just the super imposed look and the poke in the eye bit is way too old for me.


----------



## ssjLancer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cneely8* /forum/post/18741061
> 
> 
> That is interesting, especially given the target demographic. Given the oft-quoted figures in this forum around how few people are affected by side effects, can you tell us how strong was the crowd reaction? 10%? Pretty hearty from most? If they are as rare as folks claim, I'd think most people wouldn't have understood it.



10% sounds about right. Monologue wasnt very good imo.

You can watch it here if youre american.
http://www.collider.com/2010/06/07/a...-movie-awards/


----------



## Augerhandle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ssjLancer* /forum/post/18743493
> 
> 
> 10% sounds about right. Monologue wasnt very good imo.
> 
> You can watch it here if youre american.
> http://www.collider.com/2010/06/07/a...-movie-awards/



It's interesting that when he mentioned headaches, the audience went dead silent, as if thinking "Headaches? What is he talking about?"


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Low Tech* /forum/post/18741115
> 
> 
> To me 3D should not bring the image into your lap... it should make the image start on the screen and go further back as if your peering into a panarama...
> 
> 
> Though I will accept a few things fly'n by or climbing out of the picture to fall below your knees. Just the super imposed look and the poke in the eye bit is way too old for me.



I hate to say it but the Alien films, being what they are, I expect jumping out to be the predominant effect.


Art


----------



## Bill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18737439
> 
> 
> Stereoscopic 3D - the 3D with glasses, for the home is the same S3D people are seeing in the theaters. Just presented a little differently.



Polarized is much better IMO.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bill* /forum/post/18745179
> 
> 
> Polarized is much better IMO.



You lose more light wearing polarized glasses than you do wearing active shutter glasses.


----------



## sebberry

I checked out 3DTV the other day. Was pretty neat, but I found the big frames on the shutter glasses to be quite distracting. I think I'd rather have a 2D projector with a large screen than a 42" 3DTV at this point.


----------



## cbcdesign

A Ridley Scott Alien prequel in 3D! Wow! Looking forward to seeing that on my pointless 3D HDTV!


----------



## DOBE




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NOOBZ1LLA* /forum/post/18438045
> 
> 
> It came to my attention today after visiting my local Sony Style store that 3D TV's are the most pointless mainstream technology ever.
> 
> 
> How did this happen? When did consumers get on top of rooftops and start screaming for 3D capable TV's in their living room? I don't think that ever actually happened.
> 
> 
> It was like one day a bunch of major corporations got together and were like hey we are going to tell the American sheeple they want 3D Tv's. But even the most greedy CEO has to be scratching his head trying to understand how a person would want to willingly wear a heavy pair of heavy glasses for hours at a time. Do you really think you can make it through Lord of the Rings with those things on? ....
> 
> 
> 
> 3D TV is nothing more than a blatantly engineered marketing gimmick.
> 
> 
> Am I wrong?



Of course you're correct about the corporations engineering this new must have technology. It's the way Capitalism works. The question is whether it's a gimmick or the real deal.


I think with-in the next 5 years once they hone the technology -- or at least greatly improve it by getting rid of the glasses -- and they vastly increase the content, the masses will come.


The industry needs to give the public a strong incentive to buy more displays. 3D will be a "must have" technology in 5 years, especially for people who want to keep up with the Jones -- which is most people.


Sony is going all out or all in to make it so ...


June 30th, 2010


"While Sony put on an impressive preview of their 3D flat panel HDTVs at the 2010 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas this past January (complete with a mini-concert captured live in 3D with Sony Music's popular teen songstress Taylor Swift), their mid-June press event at Sony Picture Studios in Culver City pulled out all the stops."

http://www.avguide.com/blog/sony-goe...d?src=Playback 


In the meantime, I'll be on the side lines.


----------



## R Johnson

Head Tilt and 3D TV Glasses

June 30th, 2010

Matt Brennesholtz, Insight Media Analyst

http://displaydaily.com/2010/06/30/h...3d-tv-glasses/


----------



## Dude111




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sebberry* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I checked out 3DTV the other day. Was pretty neat, but I found the big frames on the shutter glasses to be quite distracting.



Ya this is one reason i will always prefer what i have always watched and loved......


A CRT in standard def


----------



## mzpro5

Glad to see this 3D thing is all the rage now in HT. The amount of 3D media is amazing and everyone I know has a 3D TV.


Guess I have to admit I was wrong when I doubted those that said this would be the BIG thing this holiday season.





NOT!!!


----------



## SBKfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mzpro5* /forum/post/19656794
> 
> 
> Glad to see this 3D thing is all the rage now in HT. The amount of 3D media is amazing and everyone I know has a 3D TV.
> 
> 
> Guess I have to admit I was wrong when I doubted those that said this would be the BIG thing this holiday season.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOT!!!



Considering 3D has been in homes less than a year, I think it's doing pretty well. I've heard MUCH more buzz about 3D tech this year than I ever heard about HD-DVD/Blu-ray in it's first. Also, I guess I'm one of the few that is not bothered by wearing the glasses.


----------



## mzpro5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SBKfan* /forum/post/19656909
> 
> 
> Considering 3D has been in homes less than a year, I think it's doing pretty well. I've heard MUCH more buzz about 3D tech this year than I ever heard about HD-DVD/Blu-ray in it's first. Also, I guess I'm one of the few that is not bothered by wearing the glasses.



There may be alot of "buzz" but that is not transferring to actual sales and acceptance of the technology. Especially when it seems there is very little if any media currently available for home use.


----------



## SBKfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mzpro5* /forum/post/19656981
> 
> 
> There may be alot of "buzz" but that is not transferring to actual sales and acceptance of the technology. Especially when it seems there is very little if any media currently available for home use.



I disagree, the "buzz" will certainly lead to more sales. Worldwide there are expectations for 4 million 3DTVs sold this year and another 5 million sold in '11. How does that compare to HDTV sales in the first two years?


----------



## 3Dhereicome




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SBKfan* /forum/post/19656909
> 
> 
> Considering 3D has been in homes less than a year, I think it's doing pretty well. I've heard MUCH more buzz about 3D tech this year than I ever heard about HD-DVD/Blu-ray in it's first. Also, I guess I'm one of the few that is not bothered by wearing the glasses.



I'm not bothered by them either because they are an exception not a necessity. I don't HAVE to watch 3D content all the time. The common complaint from most people I talk to is a.) glasses and b.) they think if they buy a 3D TV they have to wear glasses EVERY time they watch TV.


----------



## poppabk

I have to admit it is annoying having 2 TV's sat next to each other one 2D set and one 3D set. But until they come up with some way of making a weird hybrid 2D/3D set I guess I am stuck with that setup. At least it doubles the number of HDMI ports I have, I guess.


----------



## walford

I am am not aware of any 3D capable TV that is not also capable of superb PQ with 2D TV content.


----------



## JOHNnDENVER




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bill* /forum/post/18745179
> 
> 
> Polarized is much better IMO.




I disagree... 120hz sequential DLP projection w/active shutter glasses is the best I have seen period. Better than the nicer pay theaters.


----------



## JOHNnDENVER




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mzpro5* /forum/post/19656981
> 
> 
> There may be alot of "buzz" but that is not transferring to actual sales and acceptance of the technology. Especially when it seems there is very little if any media currently available for home use.



Serveral people here at the office where I work got new HDTV's for xmas. All but one got a 3D capable display. So I think your wrong anyways. Since I added 3D in my theater, it has been packed every 3D screening. Attendance had dwindled from when I first got the theater done nearly 5 years ago now.


----------



## Dude111

Quote:

Originally Posted by *mzpro5*
Glad to see this 3D thing is all the rage now in HT. The amount of 3D media is amazing and everyone I know has a 3D TV.


Guess I have to admit I was wrong when I doubted those that said this would be the BIG thing this holiday season.





NOT!!!
Hehe i was confused when i first read your post! (Until i scrolled down







)


----------



## punkguy666

There actually is quite a bit of 3d content on the horizon. Just try to think of a movie that is coming out soon that isn't in 3d. There is a lot of cheesy kids flicks but after jack ass 3d I was sold. I mean the super bowl, the olympics, NCAA, and the world cup. Besides, considering how much the motion picture studios are investing into these 3d movies it is unlikely 3d will flop. Blu ray vs hddvd proved studio support is one of the strongest ways to see if a format will last. This has proven true time and time again. Besides it doesn't even matter the 3d tv sets still look better in 2d than any other sets, and in most cases right now their giving all the 3d stuff away with the tv at an amazing price. Some may argue that this is commoditizing the format but it's also a great way of getting people to brag to their friends about this cool tech. I sell TVs and have for ten plus years and people certainly are buying 3d tvs. Most of them are back in the stores looking to buy more and more movies the next day. Avs is all about entertainment and art and 3d it's pretty f**kin entertaining if you ask me!


----------

