# 3D Non-sense



## Leetthal

Will all the new HDTVs have this?


or will there be some models without,reason is what if people dont want to pay more to have 3D.


For ex i definetly dont need/want it so don't want to have to pay more because the Model i want is 3D.


----------



## GobbityGotz

The tech is still so primitive. When I can sit in my living room and watch "3d" without glasses I might bite. The tech now is way too infantile.


----------



## optivity

Are we talking about autostereoscopic 3D displays or will these 3D PDPs require some type of glasses or other head gear?


Is 3D programming even available from TWC or w/Blu-ray disc?


Sounds like a sales gimmick to me. I'd recommend saving your upgrade *$* for a BIG screen *OLED*.


----------



## bigbee68

ESPN is launching a 3D channel in June and will produce up to 85 live sporting events in 3D in the first year. Whether or not the cable and satellite providers will carry it is another question. Some people who have seen it say that it is truly impressive.


----------



## jackal2001

From everything I've read, all 3D TV that are going to be produced will require active shutter glasses, which will require batteries. The glasses will cost about $100 each. TV manufactures will include a pair of glasses with new TVs.


There will be 3D blurays. The Playstation3 for instance will require a firmware upgrade to play them.


Sony, IMAX, Discovery, have teamed up to come out with a 24/7 3D channel by 2011.

DirectTV has plans for a 3D channel, which I'm assuming will be available when D12 satallite will is functional.


I'm not biting until you don't need glasses.


----------



## daniel'son

^^ sounds like a extra cost option some may not need nor warm up to.










plus, something else to break (tech issues).


----------



## Neceo

ya but is the tech really out there ( and has high resolution and cheap ) to do 3d without glasses? All the people saying they want without glasses.. ok maybe in 20 years


----------



## optivity




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jackal2001* /forum/post/17862006
> 
> 
> From everything I've read, all 3D TV that are going to be produced will require active shutter glasses, which will require batteries. The glasses will cost about $100 each. TV manufactures will include a pair of glasses with new TVs.



Thanks for the confirmation. I'm not currently in the market for a new display so I have not been keeping up w/the latest technology.


I suspect that 3D TVs w/glasses will go over about as well as the CableCARD and tru2way displays have.


----------



## Leetthal

Some good info here but the question was still not answered.


Will we have to pay more for new HDTVs just because it has 3D. I reallly hope they make 3D sets and Non-3D sets for the people who dont need it.


----------



## rockytt




> Quote:
> I reallly hope they make 3D sets and Non-3D sets for the people who dont need it.



Of course they will - you obviously don't think that 3D will be offered as no-cost option do you? The manufacturers aren't suddenly going to add $500 (or more) to every single tv that's being made. "Regular" (2D) sets will only stop being manufactured when it's not financially a viable medium. Can you buy a 1024x768 plasma anymore? Doesn't make sense when a 720p set is so cheap. How many RPTV CRT sets are still available? Not many, if at all.

If (big "if") the present 3D technology takes off, in 5 years you wouldn't even consider buying an old/outdated 2D set anyway and the prices will be in line with the current model.


----------



## GobbityGotz

Companies are making dedicated 3D sets. You won't have to buy one as all manufacturers will continue to make their regular HD sets without 3D tech embedded. IMO 3D sets will not make it past the gimmick stage.


Imagine having a Superbowl party and having to furnish all 10 or more of your friends with 3D glasses just to watch in 3D. Yeah ok.


----------



## Leetthal

Thanks


----------



## PigsOnTheWing




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GobbityGotz* /forum/post/17862342
> 
> 
> Imagine having a Superbowl party and having to furnish all 10 or more of your friends with 3D glasses just to watch in 3D. Yeah ok.



You've heard of BYOB, right? BYOG.










I'm sure you can still view 2D pictures on a 3D set, so you don't necessarily have to watch the Superbowl in 3D (if your friends forgot to bring their own glasses).


----------



## magillagorilla

My biggest concern with all of the 3d nonsense is sacrificing what I care about (real PQ) in favor of a novelty. Having sat through Avatar twice over the holidays, the 3d effect appears to be a cute novelty for about ten minutes. After the point, your brain becomes accustomed to it and you don't really notice anymore. Additionally, wearing the glasses dims the image significantly and (at least for me) created a distracting, hazy effect that frequently took me out of the experience.


I'll pass on the upcoming generation entirely and wait for holograms.


----------



## xb1032

Avatar in the the theater look impressive.


IMO, 3D could potentially be nice for movies however for 3D to really be immersive you need a big screen and a 65-70" TV isn't that big unless you sit on top of the TV. LOL


On the other hand, who wants to wear glasses for standard TV? Also, you room needs to be dark for the best 3D experience. 3D makes sense for movies but for everything else? I dunno.


It would have been nice if manufactures put more focus on PQ before they did on features, gadgets, etc. Sometimes I think our TVs are going to be capable of making us dinner before they can perfect black levels.


----------



## rockytt

Well, I for one am going to withhold judgement on the whole 3D home viewing experience until I see it for myself. Might be great, might just be a gimmick that I turn on when company comes over-but I'm certainly not going to lose a minute of sleep over it for at least a couple of years when things might begin to stabilize.


----------



## jbug




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PigsOnTheWing* /forum/post/17862912
> 
> 
> You've heard of BYOB, right? BYOG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you can still view 2D pictures on a 3D set, so you don't necessarily have to watch the Superbowl in 3D (if your friends forgot to bring their own glasses).



"Pay the man Shirley."


----------



## lambo172008




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xb1032* /forum/post/17864136
> 
> 
> Avatar in the the theater look impressive.
> 
> 
> IMO, 3D could potentially be nice for movies however for 3D to really be immersive you need a big screen and a 65-70" TV isn't that big unless you sit on top of the TV. LOL
> 
> 
> On the other hand, who wants to wear glasses for standard TV? Also, you room needs to be dark for the best 3D experience. 3D makes sense for movies but for everything else? I dunno.
> 
> 
> It would have been nice if manufactures put more focus on PQ before they did on features, gadgets, etc. Sometimes I think our TVs are going to be capable of making us dinner before they can perfect black levels.



totally agree, everyone keeps jarring on how they love 3D because they were blown away watching avatar at the IMAX, well sorry to tell you but unless you can have a screen the size of your wall and sit less than ten feet away from it, its just not gonna happen, at least for most of the people out there and not us tv lovers who love buying the biggest tvs we can, most people dont want to spend the money or want to buy a tv that large. 3D is great, but i think its something that will be best viewed at the theater.


----------



## localnet

From what little I have read, one of the industry guys was talking 5-10 years for it to get up to speed. And like others have said, who wants to wear glasses? Hell, I am still not that impressed with BD, some stuff, but not all by a long shot. It is the BD audio that makes me a fan, not so much the PQ and even less so the content, if you get my drift.


----------



## heckheck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jackal2001* /forum/post/17862006
> 
> 
> From everything I've read, all 3D TV that are going to be produced will require active shutter glasses, which will require batteries. The glasses will cost about $100 each. TV manufactures will include a pair of glasses with new TVs.
> 
> 
> There will be 3D blurays. The Playstation3 for instance will require a firmware upgrade to play them.
> 
> 
> I'm not biting until you don't need glasses.



In fact I will bite ONLY if they use the shutter glasses. I hope this is the way they will proceed for most sets. That hope is based on one simple fact. The technology used with the shutter glasses doesn't need to fundamentally change the basic 2D operating principles of the TV. In other words, 3D is just a special mode in which the TV can operate where it alternates the two images and provides a sync pulse the glasses can pick up that causes one or the other eye's shutter to close. So in that mode, a 120 HZ frame rate becomes 60HZ to each eye.


The set does not need to change anything inherent in how the panel is constructed, or any compromises other than the fact that they write the software so that it can go into this alternating frame mode. It will require more bandwidth only capable over HDMI 1.4 for full 1080P resolution (and so will most likely be presented as a 1080i or 720p mode), but I can't think of any way this fundamentally changes how they build the set for 2D.


Undoubtedly they will pour engineering effort into this that could be better used to increase PQ, implemented this way, it shouldn't detract from 2D PQ. I'd be vehemently against any 3D technology that would require them to fundamentally change how the set is built, as that most certainly would come at the expense of PQ.


-Jim


----------



## therealjustin

I can't imagine sitting in my chair, watching a show, and having these stupid glasses on my face. Wearing regular eye glasses is bad enough.


----------



## Neceo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *therealjustin* /forum/post/17864923
> 
> 
> I can't imagine sitting in my chair, watching a show, and having these stupid glasses on my face. Wearing regular eye glasses is bad enough.




No one is making you do it ... you do not have to get a 3d tv ... or if you do get a 3d tv you don't have to watch it in 3d when you don't feel like it.


I am a bit worried myself though about the shutter glasses and how they will fit on my with my glasses.


----------



## dirk1843

I hope this dies a quick, quiet but painful death.


ATSC and HD programing in general are just starting to mature, why throw something else in to ruin it all?


The providers say they don't have enough bandwidth now, I would think 3D will take even more, and if not, will it require 2 feeds, one for 3D and one for everyone who dosen't want the stupid glasses?


----------



## therealjustin

Of course no one is making me watch 3D, but my point is that the technology needs to be further explored as to where the glasses are not needed. I can't imagine many people will want to sit down every night and put on 3D glasses. It's just not enjoyable.


I'm sure it will be a nice feature for movies for those who want it but it just isn't an everyday thing no matter how much these companies push it.


----------



## Leetthal

This whole 3D thing is so ridiculous.


They need to focus on improving other things like Real Blacks for example or Motion on LCDs. There's just so many things that could be improved.


But i wont lie the Glasses atleast look cool.


----------



## daniel'son

^^ .. agree - I envision a SNL skit coming in the next Year or when/if released.


----------



## optivity




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Leetthal* /forum/post/17865740
> 
> 
> This whole 3D thing is so ridiculous.
> 
> 
> They need to focus on improving other things like Real Blacks for example or Motion on LCDs. There's just so many things that could be improved.
> 
> 
> But i wont lie the Glasses at least look cool.



Do I just wear them right over my glasses Clark?










I'm already switching between a pair of readers when I'm on the wireless laptop and my regular glasses to see what's on TV.










Eh, I guess I shouldn't complain about wearing (3) different pair of glasses to watch 3D TV when I am already using (5) different remotes to operate the components for my HT.


----------



## 5354




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Neceo* /forum/post/17862052
> 
> 
> ya but is the tech really out there ( and has high resolution and cheap ) to do 3d without glasses? All the people saying they want without glasses.. ok maybe in 20 years



The teach is out there but is the compay going after the tech or ur wallet?

once 60% or more bought the 3d tv with glasses. than they will push out the set that dont needs glasses. just to screw ur wallet all over again. once they'r done with the none glasses they will push out 2160p and call it true hd... is 2000 all over again.


----------



## rdorman

Gee, kind of glad my two and three year old gear is already set for the 'new' 3D spec


----------



## dallows

Reading this is kinda funny. I like seeing so many people bitter over new technology.


----------



## Neceo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *5354* /forum/post/17866697
> 
> 
> The teach is out there but is the compay going after the tech or ur wallet?
> 
> once 60% or more bought the 3d tv with glasses. than they will push out the set that dont needs glasses. just to screw ur wallet all over again. once they'r done with the none glasses they will push out 2160p and call it true hd... is 2000 all over again.



ya the tech is there, i saw the video before, but is the tech good enough at this point? Also is it cheap enough to really mass produce? Again maybe in a few years from now .. and by then hey prob time to upgrade from the 2010 models anyhow, oh and it will be oled


----------



## EAGLEFAN67

No thanks... I watch a lot of sports ...don't need 3d for that.


Seen Avatar...and it was cool , but after a while I was mentally exhausted .


If I want a 3d experience I'll visit a theater and pay the extra $2.50 for the 3D .


Just bought a 58V10...I'm not buying another set .


----------



## jcricket

Just like none of us could imagine going back to CRTs (although I remember many people claiming flat panels would never be as good color-wise as CRTs) or SD viewing ("what's the point in that for most programs?") I think 3-D will eventually get there.


Just not for a while. Far faster will be the adoption of flat-screens everywhere, esp. if wireless HDMI and lighter-weight become the norm. Imagine TVs you can just plug into power and hang with a couple picture hooks.


3-D is pretty far out there for many people who haven't even gotten HD yet, but good on the manufacturers for pushing the envelope. I just don't plan on watching 3-D at home for a decade.


----------



## brentsg

Aside from 3D porn, I'm not interested.


----------



## Leetthal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *brentsg* /forum/post/17868073
> 
> 
> Aside from 3D porn, I'm not interested.



lmao, i wonder how 3D Bluray porn will be like


----------



## xb1032




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dirk1843* /forum/post/17865279
> 
> 
> ...ATSC and HD programing in general are just starting to mature, why throw something else in to ruin it all?
> 
> 
> The providers say they don't have enough bandwidth now, I would think 3D will take even more, and if not, will it require 2 feeds, one for 3D and one for everyone who dosen't want the stupid glasses?



Good point. HD signals are already compressed so one would assume that to send more info that the providers will either have to downgrade quality or add more/better compression.


----------



## tlh1005




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dallows* /forum/post/17867563
> 
> 
> Reading this is kinda funny. I like seeing so many people bitter over new technology.



Agreed, it's pretty simple, don't want it, don't buy it. Sometimes we get awesome innovation and products from new ventures and sometimes we get technology that is dead on arrival, but we don't get anything without trying.


----------



## tlh1005




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dirk1843* /forum/post/17865279
> 
> 
> I hope this dies a quick, quiet but painful death.
> 
> 
> ATSC and HD programing in general are just starting to mature, why throw something else in to ruin it all?
> 
> 
> The providers say they don't have enough bandwidth now, I would think 3D will take even more, and if not, will it require 2 feeds, one for 3D and one for everyone who dosen't want the stupid glasses?



I haven't read anything about the technology to know for sure, but why would these channels require significant resource over the others? I'm wondering if it's similar overhead to just adding a new HD channel.


Either way I think the providers have the ability to increase the pipe whenever they want, 3D or no 3D, they just don't see the benefit based on the average consumer is my guess. I'm always amazed at the crap I see people in awe of just because it is HD. If more consumers were up in arms over PQ, I'd think we'd see less compression and faster steps towards PQ improvements. Instead, they are gambling that 3D is going to be the gimmick most consumers are after.


----------



## waepek




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tlh1005* /forum/post/17868339
> 
> 
> I haven't read anything about the technology to know for sure, but why would these channels require significant resource over the others? I'm wondering if it's similar overhead to just adding a new HD channel.
> 
> 
> Either way I think the providers have the ability to increase the pipe whenever they want, 3D or no 3D, they just don't see the benefit based on the average consumer is my guess. I'm always amazed at the crap I see people in awe of just because it is HD. If more consumers were up in arms over PQ, I'd think we'd see less compression and faster steps towards PQ improvements. Instead, they are gambling that 3D is going to be the gimmick most consumers are after.



I work for the cable company and a significant no. of custumers are still using 4:3 tvs watching analog signal. Its taking forever to get people to get a digital box and convert let alone buying new hdtv sets.

Now 3D?!?


Sharp's flagship TV is looking good. Seems like they're the only one not making such a big hype on these 3D bs tvs. Good for them!
http://ces.cnet.com/8301-31045_1-104...html?tag=mncol


----------



## lambo172008




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tlh1005* /forum/post/17868339
> 
> 
> I haven't read anything about the technology to know for sure, but why would these channels require significant resource over the others? I'm wondering if it's similar overhead to just adding a new HD channel.
> 
> 
> Either way I think the providers have the ability to increase the pipe whenever they want, 3D or no 3D, they just don't see the benefit based on the average consumer is my guess. I'm always amazed at the crap I see people in awe of just because it is HD. If more consumers were up in arms over PQ, I'd think we'd see less compression and faster steps towards PQ improvements. Instead, they are gambling that 3D is going to be the gimmick most consumers are after.



i agree, most consumers have just bought their first sets, or have yet too. as much as i liked 3D at the theaters, i just dont think it would be that great at home, i think you need that huge screen that the theater provides to give you that feeling like your there, most conusmers, unlike us, dont like the fact that their tv is the sive of their entire wall our even half, or 1/4, you know where im going. its a gimmick, could it take off, who know, maybe, but its still a ways off before that will happen.


----------



## suprememilo




> Quote:
> Can you buy a 1024x768 plasma anymore?



yes.


----------



## Something_Soft




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GobbityGotz* /forum/post/17861750
> 
> 
> The tech is still so primitive. When I can sit in my living room and watch "3d" without glasses I might bite. The tech now is way too infantile.



I don't think that is possible, is it?


That seems like something you might see in 2030.


----------



## choptalk

Instead of glasses, they ought to have a cover that you put over the screen the length of the tv made from the same material as the glasses. This way anyone who looks at the screen will see the 3d without glasses. Its kind of like the TV is wearing the glasses and your not.

When you are not watching 3d content just take the cover off the screen.


I thought of this because I remember when I was a little kid my neighbor had a huge magnified glass on his small screen tv to give it a big screen look


----------



## I Superman I

I don't think people are coming remotely close to comprehending how difficult and especially expensive it is to deliver perfect 1080p 3D to multiple seating positions at multiple angles simultaneously. The majority of glasses free displays I have seen are computer monitors that rely on a camera tracking your head position and eye angle to determine it's processing. Even look at JVC's recent 3D 47inch LCD, glasses free, $9k, and a horrible 3D experience ( according to those who have seen it, I have not sadly ). Considering people want this and at an affordable price just seems to me that people arn't comprehending how difficult this is to achieve, I don't expect glasses free 3D, at all, at a high quality level, in the next 10 years.


Of course people are talking about this as a current trend and gimmick to increase sales, and I do expect others to follow, such as 2K and 4K LCD's and the OLED market to eventually materialize, but as long as these 3D displays are improving on 2D picture quality, which seems completely apparent if you've been paying attention to new models announced at CES, then what harm does it do to have this feature available when the content is becoming available in the market? Just because you own a 3D HDTV doesn't mean your going to have to put on glasses every time you sit down to watch the evening news or your wife has to put on glasses to watch American Idol, but I personally see 3D as a premium feature that will be availible for premium content to used as an amazing bonus to haveing a great display.


Just as adoption of HD has been able to spread from the perspective of, "oh we're going to go watch the Super bowl at John house, he has it in HD." I can see it evolving to, "oh we're going to go watch the Super Bowl at John house, he's got it in 3D." When you have a major event, sports games, or have a certain movie ( Up or Toy Story or Avatar ) or want to play a certain a game ( Sony has already confirmed the PS3 to be patched to allow 3D games ) then it's an awesome feature for new consumers currently in the market for a new display to have, especially with such a large financial purchase as an HDTV.


Considering the number of CE companys and movie studios supporting 3D, the content will only grow and the braodcast will only become more common, those who expect to sit it out, are going to be sitting a very long time.


----------



## I Superman I




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *choptalk* /forum/post/17869086
> 
> 
> Instead of glasses, they ought to have a cover that you put over the screen the length of the tv made from the same material as the glasses. This way anyone who looks at the screen will see the 3d without glasses. Its kind of like the TV is wearing the glasses and your not.
> 
> When you are not watching 3d content just take the cover off the screen.
> 
> 
> I thought of this because I remember when I was a little kid my neighbor had a huge magnified glass on his small screen tv to give it a big screen look



sounds similar to the old screens you would put up on your screen to play different video games, lol, i see you go way back.


However the reason for glasses is to present a different image to each eye independantly. If both your eyes are viewing the exact same frame, you have no 3D image. And then consider that each individual person needs to have there that image delivered to each eye independantly and not only that but determined at each angle they view that content considering there seating position to allow there eyes to percieve depth, then throw that into trying to make a quality glasses free display. I can't really comprehend how it can be done.


----------



## optivity




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dallows* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Reading this is kinda funny. I like seeing so many people bitter over new technology.



No one in this forum dislikes new tech, but many who have been participating w/HT know how to recognize a feature that is more of a sales gimmick than an improvement over what really works.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *waepek* /forum/post/17868716
> 
> 
> I work for the cable company and a significant no. of custumers are still using 4:3 tvs watching analog signal. Its taking forever to get people to get a digital box and convert let alone buying new hdtv sets.
> 
> Now 3D?!?



I'm paying Time Waner $140 per month for cable TV and their rates are going up again.


Most people can't afford a $2000 flat screen TV or the $300(+) per month for digital services (e.g. TWC, Verizon FiOS, Verizon Wireless, Netflix, etc.)


If it costs the cable providers even $1 more to carry a 3D signal or obtain equipment to support 3D this technology is a non-starter.


----------



## optivity




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *I Superman I* /forum/post/17869144
> 
> 
> Just as adoption of HD has been able to spread from the perspective of, "oh we're going to go watch the Super bowl at John house, he has it in HD." I can see it evolving to, "oh we're going to go watch the Super Bowl at John house, he's got it in 3D."



"*Call me a skeptic, but I consider the industry's enthusiasm to be premature. I think bringing 3D to the home will be an uphill battle, for three main reasons:


1. Lack of 3D content. There's no doubt that Hollywood is stepping up production of 3D features. But even if all new movies started being produced in 3D, they would represent only a small percentage of the overall catalog of available films. Yes, studios are starting to "retrofit" older movies for 3D (such as the recently 3D-ified versions of "Toy Story" and "Toy Story 2"), but it's an expensive and time-consuming process. New 3D-only TV channels--such as those rumored to be coming from DirecTV--may solve part of the problem, but until broadcasters and sports leagues start investing in producing 3D TV shows and covering major games in 3D, expect these channels to be looping "Avatar," "Up," and the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics all day.


2. Upgrade fatigue. In 2008, I purchased a $400 PlayStation 3, which also doubles as a Blu-ray player. In 2009, I bought a 50-inch plasma TV for $1,600. I'm extremely satisfied with both products (even though both, of course, can now be purchased at even lower prices), and I feel like I'm getting my money's worth every time I watch TV or play a game on that gorgeous big-screen. But two grand is a lot of money. I have no desire to get a new TV or Blu-ray player anytime soon, even if they've got a new whiz-bang feature like 3D. And I think that's true of the majority of folks who paid big bucks to upgrade to HDTV in the past decade. Meanwhile, those who are still waiting to go HD--and there are millions--will be more likely to go for ever more affordable entry-level big-screen models, not premium-priced 3D models. The same goes for home video. Even if Hollywood does convert a boatload of movies to 3D, are you really going to be happy about paying for yet another version of "Star Wars"?



3. The glasses. Ah, the 3D elephant in the room. Newer 3D processes may far exceed what was offered in the 1950s or 1980s, but they still require the viewer to don a pair of glasses. That's an acceptable trade-off for a two- or three-hour "event" movie like "Avatar." But do you really want to do it every time you watch "The Big Bang Theory," "Lost," or "American Idol"? How about football or baseball? No, I didn't think so.*"

(source: John P. Falcone - CNET )


----------



## walt73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GobbityGotz* /forum/post/17861750
> 
> 
> The tech is still so primitive. When I can sit in my living room and watch "3d" without glasses I might bite. The tech now is way too infantile.



What a howler. A person naming him/herself "GobbityGotz" calls 3D technology "infantile".


Like surround sound, 3D will prove too demanding for some to be able to enjoy. What else is new?


----------



## localnet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *waepek* /forum/post/17868716
> 
> 
> I work for the cable company and a significant no. of custumers are still using 4:3 tvs watching analog signal. Its taking forever to get people to get a digital box and convert let alone buying new hdtv sets.
> 
> Now 3D?!?



I made a similar comment the other day and was laughed at by some city slicker. Honestly, I can count the number of people my wife and I know that even own a flat panel on one hand. And I bought the sets for one of them, my neighbor bought one of my sets that I was replacing along with giving one to my sil. That is three people out of say 50 friends and acquaintances that I actually know that have flat panels. A few have the older 4:3 rear projection units, but that is about it. Everyone else I know is still tubing it. And none of the them even have HDTV fed into their homes, they watch everything in SD.


Like you said, not many have digital or HDTV. And I would say that not many even own a BD player. I can go into my local Block Buster here outside of Ann Arbor MI and always get the latest BD release while the DVD of the same film is picked clean with a waiting list, and yes, I have asked.


And now 3DTV? I think they are going to be shocked when they don't meet their sales expectations with this cool new tech. Tech that really has a very small audience from what I can see when compared to HDTV which still has not really caught on, and has been around for how long?


Where can one find the real numbers from the cable and sat companies as to how many people actually have HDTV boxes in their homes compared to the SD units? That figure I believe would be quite telling.


On edit, make that 4 people, my satellite installer has HDTV and flat panels in his house. But he owns the business.


----------



## snownut

+1


----------



## tlh1005




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *optivity* /forum/post/17869439
> 
> 
> No one in this forum dislikes new tech, but many who have been participating w/HT know how to recognize a feature that is more of a sales gimmick than an improvement over what really works.



Actually I think some of it has to do with people not even really being in the market for a TV right now for whatever reason (like maybe they just bought one), or not being in the market to pay the price for a higher end set that it includes it... SOME people like to make themselves feel better this way about something others can get while they can't.


----------



## TomsHT




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dallows* /forum/post/17867563
> 
> 
> Reading this is kinda funny. I like seeing so many people bitter over new technology.



There is a legitimate reason for some of this bitterness, atleast in my own opinion. This is not like blu-ray or other technologies where if you passed on it, it didnt effect you. Up to 50% more data needs to be transmitted with 3D, regardless if your watching the 3D or 2D version. And this may not be factual but how are they going to transfer this much more data without lowering bitrates and further compressing data with the end result being lesser quality then we have now?


----------



## 5354




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *I Superman I* /forum/post/17869144
> 
> 
> I don't think people are coming remotely close to comprehending how difficult and especially expensive it is to deliver perfect 1080p 3D to multiple seating positions at multiple angles simultaneously. The majority of glasses free displays I have seen are computer monitors that rely on a camera tracking your head position and eye angle to determine it's processing. Even look at JVC's recent 3D 47inch LCD, glasses free, $9k, and a horrible 3D experience ( according to those who have seen it, I have not sadly ). Considering people want this and at an affordable price just seems to me that people arn't comprehending how difficult this is to achieve, I don't expect glasses free 3D, at all, at a high quality level, in the next 10 years.
> 
> 
> Of course people are talking about this as a current trend and gimmick to increase sales, and I do expect others to follow, such as 2K and 4K LCD's and the OLED market to eventually materialize, but as long as these 3D displays are improving on 2D picture quality, which seems completely apparent if you've been paying attention to new models announced at CES, then what harm does it do to have this feature available when the content is becoming available in the market? Just because you own a 3D HDTV doesn't mean your going to have to put on glasses every time you sit down to watch the evening news or your wife has to put on glasses to watch American Idol, but I personally see 3D as a premium feature that will be availible for premium content to used as an amazing bonus to haveing a great display.
> 
> 
> Just as adoption of HD has been able to spread from the perspective of, "oh we're going to go watch the Super bowl at John house, he has it in HD." I can see it evolving to, "oh we're going to go watch the Super Bowl at John house, he's got it in 3D." When you have a major event, sports games, or have a certain movie ( Up or Toy Story or Avatar ) or want to play a certain a game ( Sony has already confirmed the PS3 to be patched to allow 3D games ) then it's an awesome feature for new consumers currently in the market for a new display to have, especially with such a large financial purchase as an HDTV.
> 
> 
> Considering the number of CE companys and movie studios supporting 3D, the content will only grow and the braodcast will only become more common, those who expect to sit it out, are going to be sitting a very long time.



oh we're going to go watch the Super Bowl at John house, he's got it in 3D? But Dear.... How we goin to watch it in 3d? HOW!!?? oh better yet WHO goin to watch it? ( he only got one pair of glasses ) Lets just go down to the bar with the gang. the bar atleast got big azz plasma. that John used to had


----------



## daniel'son

.. new fad to pass the time; wonder what an Asian dartboard looks like.









http://www.product-reviews.net/2010/...ting-on-3d-tv/ 


Exerpt:


Sony, Panasonic and other TV makers know that profits are not huge so have to think of new technologies to keep consumers happy, they all seem to agree that 3-D is the way forward due to a number of new 3D movies being released in the cinema.



otoh, they are offering 3D players; seems Blu-ray is barely catching-on for the masses.


oh, how many 3D movies .. maybe 5.


disclosure: i'm a fuddy-dud, old-fashioned, baby-boomer .. so, it wouldn't appeal to me.


----------



## Neceo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *5354* /forum/post/17870105
> 
> 
> oh we're going to go watch the Super Bowl at John house, he's got it in 3D? But Dear.... How we goin to watch it in 3d? HOW!!?? oh better yet WHO goin to watch it? ( he only got one pair of glasses ) Lets just go down to the bar with the gang. the bar atleast got big azz plasma. that John used to had



Or still watch it at John's house but watch it in 2d ... you know you can do that right? You aren't suck to just watching 3d


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *optivity* /forum/post/17869471
> 
> 
> "Call me a skeptic, but I consider the industry's enthusiasm to be premature. I think bringing 3D to the home will be an uphill battle, for three main reasons:
> 
> 
> 1. Lack of 3D content. There's no doubt that Hollywood is stepping up production of 3D features. But even if all new movies started being produced in 3D, they would represent only a small percentage of the overall catalog of available films. Yes, studios are starting to "retrofit" older movies for 3D (such as the recently 3D-ified versions of "Toy Story" and "Toy Story 2"), but it's an expensive and time-consuming process. New 3D-only TV channels--such as those rumored to be coming from DirecTV--may solve part of the problem, but until broadcasters and sports leagues start investing in producing 3D TV shows and covering major games in 3D, expect these channels to be looping "Avatar," "Up," and the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics all day.



This is about moving forward. Regardless of what they can/can do with older films it's not the highlight. I don't give a **** if Star Wars comes out in the 3D, I want new stuff.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *optivity* /forum/post/17869471
> 
> 
> 2. Upgrade fatigue. In 2008, I purchased a $400 PlayStation 3, which also doubles as a Blu-ray player. In 2009, I bought a 50-inch plasma TV for $1,600. I'm extremely satisfied with both products (even though both, of course, can now be purchased at even lower prices), and I feel like I'm getting my money's worth every time I watch TV or play a game on that gorgeous big-screen. But two grand is a lot of money. I have no desire to get a new TV or Blu-ray player anytime soon, even if they've got a new whiz-bang feature like 3D. And I think that's true of the majority of folks who paid big bucks to upgrade to HDTV in the past decade. Meanwhile, those who are still waiting to go HD--and there are millions--will be more likely to go for ever more affordable entry-level big-screen models, not premium-priced 3D models. The same goes for home video. Even if Hollywood does convert a boatload of movies to 3D, are you really going to be happy about paying for yet another version of "Star Wars"?



No one is being forced to upgrade. That HDTV you bought for a whopping $1600 still works, and still will work. Your PS3 will be fully capable of playing 3D blu-ray with a software/firmware update that is surely coming.


The only sets with 3D capabilities are the high end ones. And you don't sound like the guy who buys that stuff anyway.


And yes, people will pay. People will always pay.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *optivity* /forum/post/17869471
> 
> 
> 3. The glasses. Ah, the 3D elephant in the room. Newer 3D processes may far exceed what was offered in the 1950s or 1980s, but they still require the viewer to don a pair of glasses. That's an acceptable trade-off for a two- or three-hour "event" movie like "Avatar." But do you really want to do it every time you watch "The Big Bang Theory," "Lost," or "American Idol"? How about football or baseball? No, I didn't think so.[/b]"



It's all choice. These channels will not replace the current low-def or hi-def channels.


I really don't see why the glasses are such an issue. You put them on for 2hrs and that's it. If you want to watch a regular show in hd you put them on for 30 minutes. Again, no one is forcing this on you.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *localnet* /forum/post/17869542
> 
> 
> And now 3DTV? I think they are going to be shocked when they don't meet their sales expectations with this cool new tech. Tech that really has a very small audience from what I can see when compared to HDTV which still has not really caught on, and has been around for how long?



Being only high-end models I'd expect their sales predictions to be about the same as last years high end models without the 3D.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TomsHT* /forum/post/17870027
> 
> 
> There is a legitimate reason for some of this bitterness, at least in my own opinion. This is not like blu-ray or other technologies where if you passed on it, it didn't effect you. Up to 50% more data needs to be transmitted with 3D, regardless if your watching the 3D or 2D version. And this may not be factual but how are they going to transfer this much more data without lowering bitrates and further compressing data with the end result being lesser quality then we have now?



How does it affect you? Because cable companies might need to actually up their bandwidth (shocking) or properly provide the content to the consumer? (amazing). I have Brighthouse in FL and it sucks, for the most part. Aside from like 10 HD channels I have no use for the others. They don't seem to impact the performance or my viewing of the other channels I use, so what's the difference? It's just more options available.


You make it seem like 3D would put a handicap on everything for the next few years. I just don't see that as possible.


----------



## daniel'son

^^ .. i can feel 'brain hemmoraging' (other ailment/neurosis) suits in the near future.


----------



## Brimstone-1

Blu-Ray disc capacity is getting increased from 25 GB a layer to 33.4GB.


A Dual Layer Blu-Ray 3d movies will have a maximum 66.8GB of information.



They haven't announced how the spindle rate of the disc yet. The faster they spin the Blu-Ray disc the more bandwidth they get.



Blu-Ray 3d will have more bandwidth. The image quality isn't decreasing.




Phone companies like Verizon with fiber optics technology can deliever incredible amounts of bandwidth to the home.


Cable companies can increase bandwidth by bonding two cable lines together.



Think back a few decades when computers only had simple dial-up modem access. Technology improves all the time. This is only the start of 3d. It has to begin somewhere.


Also the potential exists for 120 frames per second 2d video. The image quality on fast moving sports action would be terrific.


----------



## TomsHT

Weve been hearing promises about larger disc capabilities since it first launched so lets not depend on somthing that still hasnt ever become a reality and leave it in the vaporware section where it belongs. Spinning discs faster for higher bandwidth, ya Im sure that will go over well once you tell the millions of current owners they have to go replace there players.


----------



## Hawk_Eye

It took nearly 10 yrs for plasma and LCD to mature and be at where we are today, I would imagine it will take just as long or even longer for 3D.


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hawk_Eye* /forum/post/17871555
> 
> 
> It took nearly 10 yrs for plasma and LCD to mature and be at where we are today, I would imagine it will take just as long or even longer for 3D.



I disagree. I think as our overall technology advances the time between advancements will decrease.


----------



## hithere

Everyone is talking about a doubling of bandwidth/spin rates/disc capacity etc....wouldn't even simple mpeg compression across 2 very similar frames ("left eye" and "right eye") result in about 90% savings on the bandwidth necessary for the extra goodies? I'd find it hard to believe this hasn't occurred to anyone behind the new standards...


----------



## Leetthal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dallows* /forum/post/17871573
> 
> 
> i disagree. I think as our overall technology advances the time between advancements will decrease.



qft


----------



## Hawk_Eye




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dallows* /forum/post/17871573
> 
> 
> I disagree. I think as our overall technology advances the time between advancements will decrease.



If this 3D tech. involves lot of new R&D then it may take long before the 3D technology can be really practical and can deliver quality that people look for.


----------



## localnet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hawk_Eye* /forum/post/17871729
> 
> 
> If this 3D tech. involves lot of new R&D then it may take long before the 3D technology can be really practical and can deliver quality that people look for.



Probably 10 years out, easy.


----------



## dallows

The 3D is already here. Sure some improvements will be made. But 10 years? Really?


----------



## xb1032

This may not be important to the younger crowd but many of us aren't getting any younger and I'm starting to think it will take another 5-10 years before the average Joe can just buy a big screen TV/projector capable of perfect black levels with a bright pic. 3D does sound interesting to me however companies are putting focus on 3D, features, and slimming down TVs more than they are focusing on picture quality. This type of mentality doesn't sit well with the audio/videophile.


----------



## localnet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dallows* /forum/post/17871979
> 
> 
> The 3D is already here. Sure some improvements will be made. But 10 years? Really?



I was reading some industry stuff yesterday, 5 to 10 years to get it into homes like our current setups. And most people do not have what we have, still more tube sets out there than HD by a long shot. But I was replying to that specific post, where you will not need glasses and such, and I would say an easy ten years for that.


----------



## markettymer

I'm just not that interested if I need to wear glasses to see the 3D. I certainly won't bother with this round of technology. I MIGHT be interested if the 3d was without glasses but even then its not something I'm clamoring for.


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xb1032* /forum/post/17872875
> 
> 
> This may not be important to the younger crowd but many of us aren't getting any younger and I'm starting to think it will take another 5-10 years before the average Joe can just buy a big screen TV/projector capable of perfect black levels with a bright pic. 3D does sound interesting to me however companies are putting focus on 3D, features, and slimming down TVs more than they are focusing on picture quality. This type of mentality doesn't sit well with the audio/videophile.



I don't see any indication that they're not trying to improve the PQ. Just because they're adding a new feature?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *localnet* /forum/post/17872916
> 
> 
> I was reading some industry stuff yesterday, 5 to 10 years to get it into homes like our current setups. And most people do not have what we have, still more tube sets out there than HD by a long shot. But I was replying to that specific post, where you will not need glasses and such, and I would say an easy ten years for that.



If you're focusing on the casual consumer having a nice setup like the enthusiasts do then you're talking about different things.


If you were referencing something else please quote it or make it more clear next time to avoid confusion. Thanks.


----------



## optivity




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dallows* /forum/post/17870308
> 
> 
> This is about moving forward. Regardless of what they can/can do with older films it's not the highlight. I don't give a **** if Star Wars comes out in the 3D, I want new stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is being forced to upgrade. That HDTV you bought for a whopping $1600 still works, and still will work. Your PS3 will be fully capable of playing 3D blu-ray with a software/firmware update that is surely coming.
> 
> 
> The only sets with 3D capabilities are the high end ones. And you don't sound like the guy who buys that stuff anyway.
> 
> 
> And yes, people will pay. People will always pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all choice. These channels will not replace the current low-def or hi-def channels.
> 
> 
> I really don't see why the glasses are such an issue. You put them on for 2hrs and that's it. If you want to watch a regular show in hd you put them on for 30 minutes. Again, no one is forcing this on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being only high-end models I'd expect their sales predictions to be about the same as last years high end models without the 3D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does it affect you? Because cable companies might need to actually up their bandwidth (shocking) or properly provide the content to the consumer? (amazing). I have Brighthouse in FL and it sucks, for the most part. Aside from like 10 HD channels I have no use for the others. They don't seem to impact the performance or my viewing of the other channels I use, so what's the difference? It's just more options available.
> 
> 
> You make it seem like 3D would put a handicap on everything for the next few years. I just don't see that as possible.



dude... while I agree with the person who authored those words (John P. Falcone - CNET), I'm just the messenger so there is no need to take me to task.


But just so you know during the past five years I have purchased (2) PDPs (one for $5400 and the other cost $7500) a $1600 receiver and a $4200 speaker package so I believe I have a wee bit of experience w/pricey A/V components.


----------



## optivity




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dallows* /forum/post/17871979
> 
> 
> The 3D is already here. Sure some improvements will be made. But 10 years? Really?



Give me 3D OLED or a Samsung 2D TV.


----------



## localnet

Hell, just give me some content...


Something that is sorely lacking in the past few years... If you get my drift?


----------



## QZ1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *optivity* /forum/post/17869471
> 
> 
> "But do you really want to do it every time you watch "The Big Bang Theory," "*Lost*," or "American Idol"? How about football or baseball? No, I didn't think so.[/b]"



For 'Lost', yes. Maybe even MLB playoffs, too.


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *optivity* /forum/post/17874667
> 
> 
> dude... while I agree with the person who authored those words (John P. Falcone - CNET), I'm just the messenger so there is no need to take me to task.
> 
> 
> But just so you know during the past five years I have purchased (2) PDPs (one for $5400 and the other cost $7500) a $1600 receiver and a $4200 speaker package so I believe I have a wee bit of experience w/pricey A/V components.



Just because you buy expensive stuff doesn't mean you actually know anything about it. Not a personal attack but just saying in general how worthless a statement like that is.


----------



## Gary McCoy

The important facts are:


1) 3D capability represents a minor upgrade to current 2D displays. This would include the ability to accept and display 120Hz video signals (most current displays accept 60Hz inputs and display 120Hz or 240Hz), plus the addition of the mini-DIN connector that will control the shutter glasses, either through a cable or a wireless dongle.


2) Anybody with a 3D-capable display need not care, and is perfectly able to ignore the 3D capability forever, and enjoy the display quality that way.


3) Right now, there exists only one 3D film out of the several that I have seen, that I would pay money for, and actually buy the 3D Blu-Ray. That film is *Avatar*.


4) Almost everybody will be watching the SuperBowl this year on a bigscreen HDTV. The few that can show it in FHD3D (Full HD with 3D) will have bragging rights.


5) I'm not going to run out and replace my $2000, 2-year-old HDTV. But I'm overdue for a front projector upgrade in the Home Theater. I anxiously await the 3D Front Projectors.


----------



## Airion

Not many gamers here? Lack of 3D content or bandwidth wouldn't be an issue for gamers. The 3D is already in the games, just waiting for a machine (PS3) to flip a switch and output the imagine to a compatible TV. There's already PC video cards out there that, with a compatible display and glasses that come with the card, display any PC game in 3D. There is no content issue.


As Gary McCoy's facts 1 and 2 point out, it's not a big technological hurdle.


People only complain about the glasses because it's just not something they're used to doing. It's not that glasses are itchy or something. Heck, before I got contacts, I wore glasses ALL DAY, and it wasn't so bad.


So for a gamer, with potentially loads of 3D content ready to go and a relatively low technological hurdle to get 3D compatible TVs out there, I'm very eager.


----------



## optivity




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dallows* /forum/post/17875271
> 
> 
> Just because you buy expensive stuff doesn't mean you actually know anything about it. Not a personal attack but just saying in general how worthless a statement like that is.



dude... follow the link embedded w/my signature below (a.k.a. the blurb beneath my screen name) and you will see what I do for a living and may surmise I know a wee bit about high-tech too.


There is some miss-quoting going on here (e.g. QZ1) either use the "quote" button when responding to someone's post or try doing a better job with the cut & paste option.


As some other individuals have said, for those in the market for a new TV; 3D is a viable (albeit a gimmicky) option and it appears some content providers (e.g. DirectTV) are trying to develop partnerships w/content providers to develop 3D programming. We'll see how 3D pans out over the next couple of years. I still believe 3DTV has as much possibility of becoming mainstream as the CableCARD & tru2way have. So many people will end up with a 3D featured TV, which they use about as often as I access the TV Guide program option for my HDTV.


My BIGGEST disappointment coming out of the reports of CES 2010 is there is no big screen OLED being announced or even contemplated for release.


Oh well, I guess I will have to remain satisfied with my _old fashion_ A/V components (PRO-150FD, SC-07, Intimus 6T-DB Hybrid XD speaker package, PS3 slim & last but not least: Time Warner cable box) for the time being.


----------



## optivity

"3D TV Requires Rose-Colored Glasses

01.06.10




Sony, Vizio, LG, ESPN and DirectTV are all pushing 3D TV at CES 2010, but it just doesn't look very good.


3Comments

by *Dan Costa*


So far the big story at CES 2010 is the seemingly inevitable march toward 3D TV. Nearly every major manufacturer is announcing a high-end 3D HDTV at the show, including Sony, Vizio, and LG. (Sharp is an exception..)


And there is going to be new 3D content, too: Sony and the Discovery Channel will partner on an all 3D channel, and ESPN started plugging the upcoming ESPN 3D on SportsCenter yesterday. Add in the good timing that that number one movie in the country$640 million and counting - is Avatar, also available in 3D. There's just one little problem, which no one here at CES seems to want to discuss: 3D TV just doesn't look very good.


I saw Avatar in 3D at an IMAX theater over the holiday. I like the movie and was even game for wearing the goofy glasses. The movie was spectacular, but the 3D effects fell flat. Although parts of the picture would pop, the rest of the screen seemed to suffer for it. More often than not, the effects distracted from the story instead of enhancing it. There was one scene where some insects buzzing the foreground really caught me, but other than that I think I would have preferred plain old 2D, as long as it included IMAX, Dolby Surround, and a really comfy seat.


What's more, the viewing experience became less about the story and more about spotting 3D effects. That novelty might fade with time, but so will the patience with those glasses. If you want a formula for failure, ask your customers to change their behavior to use your product. Wearing 3D glasses is tolerable for an event like Avatar, but are the guys really going to gather around for the Sunday games wearing goggles? Probably not. Definitely not, if the effects are as poor as what I have seen so far at CES.


Furthermore, retrofitting your living room for 3D is going to be expensive. For most consumers, the privilege of watching a 3D version of Avatar at home could cost as much as $4,000 after the cost of a 3D-capable TV and 3D-compliant Blu-ray player is factored in. After all, a big reason vendors are pushing 3D is so they can start selling HDTVS for more than $1,000 again. (One savvy PCMag staffer found a 47-inch Sharp LCD HDTV that does full 1080p for just $800 this holiday. Score!) The economy might be turning upward, but not many of us can afford high-end TVs these days.


I should note that 3D TVs have been on the market for years. Mitsubishi has been touting the 3D capabilities of its DLP HDTVs, mainly as a key differentiator for games. Did you know that? No? That probably means there hasn't been a huge market for it. In a post-Avatar and ESPN 3D world, that will certainly change. But it will also take a while before 3D TV really goes mainstream.


I'm not being naive about costs; they will come down eventually. When the hordes howled at the $1,000 price tags for Blu-ray players a few year back, I told people to relax and wait for the volumes to bring prices down. Now, for just $150, no one would consider just buying a DVD player. (Or, incidentally, a Blu-ray player without some built-in Internet streaming capability.) Of course, prices will fall, but not in 2010. Probably not even in 2011.


The one place I see 3D catching on faster is with gamers. Nvidia and others are pushing 3D programming into gaming and it works great. Gamers tend to be patient with new technologies, especially if it increases the realism of game play. Can you imagine a bunch of geeks huddled in front of their TVs playing "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3" in 3D? Yeah, me too.


Despite my reservations, I do think there is a future for 3D TV. It just isn't the near future. In many ways this is akin to the early days of HD, where there were a handful of channels that a pathetically small number of people could actually watch. Who am I to argue with research firms like DisplaySearch, which predicts the 3D TV market will reach $1.1 billion in 2010 and swell to $15.8 billion by 2015. That may be, but Dan Costa Research guessestimates those sets will be showing 2D content 92% of the time they are on.


And if anyone tells you differently, those aren't 3D goggles they are wearingthey're rose colored glasses."

( link to Dan Costa's article )


----------



## xb1032




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dallows* /forum/post/17874459
> 
> 
> I don't see any indication that they're not trying to improve the PQ. Just because they're adding a new feature?...



It's not that the PQ isn't improving however I would have to guess that PQ improvements would be much more of a top priority if features/changes weren't given the spotlight that they are. Thinness was last years big seller (edge lit LCDs with many believe the PQ was a step down) and this year it's 3D. Wireless connections, internet content and such is cool, but my bet would be that these items are take away from resources being devoted to improvements in PQ.


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xb1032* /forum/post/17900525
> 
> 
> It's not that the PQ isn't improving however I would have to guess that PQ improvements would be much more of a top priority if features/changes weren't given the spotlight that they are. Thinness was last years big seller (edge lit LCDs with many believe the PQ was a step down) and this year it's 3D. Wireless connections, internet content and such is cool, but my bet would be that these items are take away from resources being devoted to improvements in PQ.



I don't think you've been following everything closely enough then.


----------



## KidHorn

I don't think 3D will be a big seller in 2010, but prices will drop and more content will become available and it will eventually catch on. The TV industry and movie industry need for it to succeed and they'll invest whatever is needed to make it work.


I probably won't consider buying a 3DTV until one of my existing TVs break.


----------



## JWhip

I am sorry but I have seen these demos and have not been bowled over. The 3D "effect" gets really old after awhile as it it used more for sight gags than anything else. PLus the cardboard cut out effects of moving objects looks anything but real. The jury is still out on eye fatigue. Can't judge that by the short demos given at these events. Time will tell, but this could be more like SACD and DVD-A which despite being of better quality, died on the vine. Also, wearing the new glasses over my existing glasses, not exactly a good experience.


----------



## xb1032




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dallows* /forum/post/17900680
> 
> 
> I don't think you've been following everything closely enough then.



Engadget agrees with me. Read the first line of their description of the Panasonic plasma:

http://hd.engadget.com/2010/01/11/pa...-black-levels/ 



> Quote:
> While most HDTV manufactures are focused on being thin and 3D...



As I stated before, manufacturers are putting a lot of effort into features and thinness. They are improving PQ, but if they redirected the focus they currently have one features and thinness I believe that PQ would be improve at a faster rate. That is all I am saying.


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xb1032* /forum/post/17908446
> 
> 
> Engadget agrees with me. Read the first line of their description of the Panasonic plasma:
> 
> http://hd.engadget.com/2010/01/11/pa...-black-levels/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I stated before, manufacturers are putting a lot of effort into features and thinness. They are improving PQ, but if they redirected the focus they currently have one features and thinness I believe that PQ would be improve at a faster rate. That is all I am saying.



Actually Engadget doesn't agree with you. What manufacturers do you care about? For me right now it's Panasonic and Samsung. Both which seem to have focus on the overall quality and PQ of their panels.


Simply put Engadget doesn't really have a good grasp of things. No one does. I don't think a lot of the technical info behind the 2010 panels has been disclosed or discussed (that I know of). So until then it's all speculation.


----------



## TheBluePill

Intel, Mag, Phillips, Innovision.. All showcased 3D FPs that did NOT require glasses. This is going to be key for 24/7 acceptance, period.


People will pull out the glasses only for special events like the super bowl or movie night.. but the rest of the time, the glasses will in the cabinet with 2d content playing.


It will take Glasses-less displays before 3D will really become main stream, and we are probably 5 years away from that, unless the technical hurdle of viewing distance and position is corrected. I fear that the current generation of Shutter Glasses will "sour" people from going 3D.. Set the format back.


Aside from that, Holography is making HUGE strides.. 3D may give way to Holography quickly..


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TheBluePill* /forum/post/17908612
> 
> 
> Intel, Mag, Phillips, Innovision.. All showcased 3D FPs that did NOT require glasses. This is going to be key for 24/7 acceptance, period.
> 
> 
> People will pull out the glasses only for special events like the super bowl or movie night.. but the rest of the time, the glasses will in the cabinet with 2d content playing.
> 
> 
> It will take Glasses-less displays before 3D will really become main stream, and we are probably 5 years away from that, unless the technical hurdle of viewing distance and position is corrected. I fear that the current generation of Shutter Glasses will "sour" people from going 3D.. Set the format back.
> 
> 
> Aside from that, Holography is making HUGE strides.. 3D may give way to Holography quickly..



Yes and as you stated to get the benefit of the 3D without glasses you have to be in a specific spot.


----------



## fire407

I can't believe all the hatred of new technology on this forum. I'm going to assume it's because there are many people that just spent a lot of money on new TVs that just found out that something better is right around the corner. I spent 3 days at CES looking at all of the 3D displays and demos. 3D without glasses is low rez and very immature. It will be many years before 3D without glasses takes off. The shuttered glasses 3D has been adopted by almost everyone(Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, and contrary to what someone posted earlier even Sharp). Live content such as football and shows like Wheel of Furtune looked fantastic. I will go on record now saying that 3D is going to be huge--THIS YEAR. DirecTV was demonstrating their 3D channel and it will be available to the public in June. I played with a 3D Blu-ray player at the Samsung booth, and that technology is ready to sell now---it looked great. The beauty of the 3D implementation is that it is totally backward compatible. The TVs will display normal HD as well as any top of the line TV. For example, one of Panasonic's displays had Kuro black levels but still a higher on off rate to eliminate any trailing. A 3D Blu-ray movie can be played on any Blu-ray player in 2D. When good 3D demos hit the stores, people are going to want to have the technology. Some people on this forum might wish it would go away, but it is definitely here to stay.


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/17908692
> 
> 
> I can't believe all the hatred of new technology on this forum. I'm going to assume it's because there are many people that just spent a lot of money on new TVs that just found out that something better is right around the corner. I spent 3 days at CES looking at all of the 3D displays and demos. 3D without glasses is low rez and very immature. It will be many years before 3D without glasses takes off. The shuttered glasses 3D has been adopted by almost everyone(Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, and contrary to what someone posted earlier even Sharp). Live content such as football and shows like Wheel of Furtune looked fantastic. I will go on record now saying that 3D is going to be huge--THIS YEAR. DirecTV was demonstrating their 3D channel and it will be available to the public in June. I played with a 3D Blu-ray player at the Samsung booth, and that technology is ready to sell now---it looked great. The beauty of the 3D implementation is that it is totally backward compatible. The TVs will display normal HD as well as any top of the line TV. For example, one of Panasonic's displays had Kuro black levels but still a higher on off rate to eliminate any trailing. A 3D Blu-ray movie can be played on any Blu-ray player in 2D. When good 3D demos hit the stores, people are going to want to have the technology. Some people on this forum might wish it would go away, but it is definitely here to stay.



Personally I can't wait to get my huge 3D tv so I can watch avatar at home, and game in 3D.


----------



## TheBluePill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/17908692
> 
> 
> I can't believe all the hatred of new technology on this forum. I'm going to assume it's because there are many people that just spent a lot of money on new TVs that just found out that something better is right around the corner. I spent 3 days at CES looking at all of the 3D displays and demos. 3D without glasses is low rez and very immature. It will be many years before 3D without glasses takes off. The shuttered glasses 3D has been adopted by almost everyone(Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, and contrary to what someone posted earlier even Sharp). Live content such as football and shows like Wheel of Furtune looked fantastic. I will go on record now saying that 3D is going to be huge--THIS YEAR. DirecTV was demonstrating their 3D channel and it will be available to the public in June. I played with a 3D Blu-ray player at the Samsung booth, and that technology is ready to sell now---it looked great. The beauty of the 3D implementation is that it is totally backward compatible. The TVs will display normal HD as well as any top of the line TV. For example, one of Panasonic's displays had Kuro black levels but still a higher on off rate to eliminate any trailing. A 3D Blu-ray movie can be played on any Blu-ray player in 2D. When good 3D demos hit the stores, people are going to want to have the technology. Some people on this forum might wish it would go away, but it is definitely here to stay.



I dont think its hatred, just fear of the unknown, coupled with a less than ideal solution off the bat.


3D took everyone by surprise for the most part, until a month ago, it didn't enter 99% of the minds of folks for home use.. Avatar and then CES was a 1-2 Punch that has floored a lot of people and its a lot to get their heads around.


If it didnt require the Glasses, i figure 90% of people would be 100% gung-ho for it.. but the Glasses are the big "IF"... For the last 80 years, TV didnt require a wearable accessory to work properly.


BUT, if the tech lines out and the content is delivered well, i think we are seeing a new dawn of technology for home entertainment.


----------



## defiancecp

to those whining about paying more for stuff because it has 3d, consider that right now you can buy a 3d 720p dlp projector for about $50-$100 less than you could buy a "normal" 720p dlp projector for 6 months ago.


The industry did one thing right here by making the tv/proj/etc side of the tech almost completely nothing (basically just 120hz refresh rate and you're done). Which puts the onus of paying for it on the 3d people, who now have to buy active glasses. Was talking to some guys at my office - two people in this small group *already have* 3d capable tvs, and didn't even realize it, they just bought what looked like the best bang for the buck tv.


Honestly, given what's already out there for cheap (as far as 3d capable tvs go), I definitely wouldn't worry about the 3d standard jacking up everyone elses tvs.


----------



## xb1032




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dallows* /forum/post/17908587
> 
> 
> Actually Engadget doesn't agree with you. What manufacturers do you care about? For me right now it's Panasonic and Samsung. Both which seem to have focus on the overall quality and PQ of their panels.
> 
> 
> Simply put Engadget doesn't really have a good grasp of things. No one does. I don't think a lot of the technical info behind the 2010 panels has been disclosed or discussed (that I know of). So until then it's all speculation.



I don't think you are getting the point.


----------



## 3Dhereicome

first off a lot of you are funny. Panasonic, sony and so on will eventually add this to every model. Whether you use it will be up to you. To the first poster, no you can absolutely not get a top of the line TV this year without 3D included. The prices they claim will not be much higher. Myself I want a Panny VT25 and the whole 25 series is 3D. So I'm going with 3D because I want the best TV I can get and that seems to be Panasonic Plasma.


----------



## tlh1005




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TheBluePill* /forum/post/17908872
> 
> 
> I dont think its hatred, just fear of the unknown, coupled with a less than ideal solution off the bat.
> 
> 
> 3D took everyone by surprise for the most part, until a month ago, it didn't enter 99% of the minds of folks for home use.. Avatar and then CES was a 1-2 Punch that has floored a lot of people and its a lot to get their heads around.
> 
> 
> If it didnt require the Glasses, i figure 90% of people would be 100% gung-ho for it.. but the Glasses are the big "IF"... For the last 80 years, TV didnt require a wearable accessory to work properly.
> 
> 
> BUT, if the tech lines out and the content is delivered well, i think we are seeing a new dawn of technology for home entertainment.



Na, I think it tech envy... people who just got a new set within the past year don't like that everyone else is going to be getting something they don't have unless they upgrade themselves. I bet many of the people complaining about 3D aren't even the market for a set this year, and some just don't have the cash for it. I said some, so it's not neccessary for everyone to chime in saying that they're buying this year, they've got a $5k Kuro, or a ZR-1 in the garage blah blah blah. It's way to easy to fabricate a story on the Internet.


I find it hard to believe that a MAJORITY of people who truly have and are planning to use the cash for something like the VT25 series from Panasonic THIS YEAR, would be irritated about the sets also including 3D.


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xb1032* /forum/post/17913805
> 
> 
> I don't think you are getting the point.



No, I do. I just really don't believe that if 3D wasn't coming out you'd see more leaps and bounds in the new line of TV's. I believe the companies are putting just as much effort into this year's improvements as they would've without 3D.


----------



## whitetrash66




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dallows* /forum/post/17914933
> 
> 
> No, I do. I just really don't believe that if 3D wasn't coming out you'd see more leaps and bounds in the new line of TV's. I believe the companies are putting just as much effort into this year's improvements as they would've without 3D.



i agree with this. It's like saying that sony/samsung only worked on 240 hertz this last year and PQ stayed the same... not true. The panels (for the most part) are obviously better, and with sony and sharp using the new Sharp panels (UV2A or whatever they are called), there will probably be a fairly nice leap forward in PQ.


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xb1032* /forum/post/17916994
> 
> 
> If that's what you believe that's fine. But I do want to point out that is your opinion and your just making a guess from your perspective and nothing else.
> 
> 
> Again, I didn't say PQ wasn't improving but rather at a much slower rate because manufacturers were putting a large focus on thinness and 3D (just like engadget stated but you said they didn't agree with me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). I have upgraded my TV every year for the last 6 years and follow CES and I can tell you that things have changed the last 2 years. And I could give you examples of last year however I'm certain if I did you would just tell me that I'm wrong so I won't take the time to bother.



Let me point out that it's just YOUR opinion and it's just engadget's OPINION. Do they have any tech to go on? No. Are they Panasonic fanboys? Unclear.


What's clear is this ONE site makes a broad statement about the new 3D tech being the focus (why not?) and how Panasonic stands tall not taking the focal point away from improved PQ, black levels, features, etc. Whatever the hell you want to say to make Panasonic look the best.


That's all I'm saying. You'd be very foolish to think the other manufacturers would sit by and not improve their panels? Seriously? That's why there's this thing called "competition."


By the way your last sentence or two about buying new tv's every year makes absolutely no sense. Changed in terms of what exactly?


----------



## xb1032




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dallows* /forum/post/17917097
> 
> 
> Let me point out that it's just YOUR opinion and it's just engadget's OPINION. Do they have any tech to go on? No. Are they Panasonic fanboys? Unclear.
> 
> 
> What's clear is this ONE site makes a broad statement about the new 3D tech being the focus (why not?) and how Panasonic stands tall not taking the focal point away from improved PQ, black levels, features, etc. Whatever the hell you want to say to make Panasonic look the best.
> 
> 
> That's all I'm saying. You'd be very foolish to think the other manufacturers would sit by and not improve their panels? Seriously? That's why there's this thing called "competition."
> 
> 
> By the way your last sentence or two about buying new tv's every year makes absolutely no sense. Changed in terms of what exactly?



Yes it is my opinion and I never said otherwise nor did I state you were wrong or tell you that you aren't following things closely based off of my opinion.


When I say improvements I am referring most specifically to contrast/black levels (mostly black levels) which is why I upgraded.


Also, you keep overlooking the fact that I stated TVs are improving (but IMO at a slower rate) and never once did I suggest that TV manufacturers are sitting still. I am not that naive.


However, don't overlook the fact that if one manufacturer goes for 3D then the rest must follow otherwise they risk giving the competitor the upper hand. And if that's the case the company must either pull from current resources or hire more resources. Given the current state of the economy, I'm not convinced that these companies have been bringing in new resources for new projects. But rather they are pulling from within (unfortunately this is common at this point in time with large companies trying to save a buck) and refocusing on other goals. Fewer resources typically means less research.


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> You know, I look terrible in glasses and I know that if we're watching 3D with those _goofy_ glasses, they'll all be looking at me and not watching the show and they'll be giggling at me because I look so uncool. Therefore I hate 3D, even though I know nothing about it.



What is up with people who think wearing glasses is the end of the world??? If you have a huge screen and sit so close you can see the pixels, then maybe glasses will restrict your view of the screen, but seriously....


----------



## Casey_Bryson









Unbelievable....I am almost speechless at the level of nescience portrayed in this forum.


I hate to make my 1st post such a negative one, but maybe it will spin to the positive by the time I'm done.


Are you people serious??? Are you the same people I used to talk to at the turn of the century who used to question HD by saying " I really don't see the difference" and "the technology is so infantile.....Are you serious??


Have you not seen Avatar in 3D? Have you not watched a football game in life like-almost there-digital 3D? Seriously??? I thought this forum was for the hardcore AV, the early adopters, the protectors of all that is holy?


What's NEXT? 4K sucks? or when 3D holographic imagery that matches real life comes out you'll say: "that not real"???










Get out of your outdated (yes I said it) Home Theater and go see the "future" NOW... (or simply stated get outside and see the real world)


This isn't your anaglyph 3D of old and no it's not perfect, but I dare you to see Avatar in 3D (properly configured) and then see it in 2D BACK-to-BACK or hell, wait a week if memory serves you correctly. But if you have any EYE at all you'll swear off the 2D version and anything like it instantly. Why? IT LOOKS FLAT. I hate to tell you this but the world is not flat....










There is a reason why Cameron is not going to make another 2D movie. There is a reason why DirecTV and ESPN3D will be broadcasting 3D worldwide this June for the World Cup. There is a reason why Hollywood and every major entertainment conglomerate have rallied behind 3D.



The reason why people here have not?



Fill in the blank.


----------



## whitetrash66




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Casey_Bryson* /forum/post/17921377
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unbelievable....I am almost speechless at the level of nescience portrayed in this forum.
> 
> 
> I hate to make my 1st post such a negative one, but maybe it will spin to the positive by the time I'm done.
> 
> 
> Are you people serious??? Are you the same people I used to talk to at the turn of the century who used to question HD by saying " I really don't see the difference" and "the technology is so infantile.....Are you serious??
> 
> 
> Have you not seen Avatar in 3D? Have you not watched a football game in life like-almost there-digital 3D? Seriously??? I thought this forum was for the hardcore AV, the early adopters, the protectors of all that is holy?
> 
> 
> What's NEXT? 4K sucks? or when 3D holographic imagery that matches real life comes out you'll say: "that not real"???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get out of your outdated (yes I said it) Home Theater and go see the "future" NOW... (or simply stated get outside and see the real world)
> 
> 
> This isn't your anaglyph 3D of old and no it's not perfect, but I dare you to see Avatar in 3D (properly configured) and then see it in 2D BACK-to-BACK or hell, wait a week if memory serves you correctly. But if you have any EYE at all you'll swear off the 2D version and anything like it instantly. Why? IT LOOKS FLAT. I hate to tell you this but the world is not flat....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a reason why Cameron is not going to make another 2D movie. There is a reason why DirecTV and ESPN3D will be broadcasting 3D worldwide this June for the World Cup. There is a reason why Hollywood and every major entertainment conglomerate have rallied behind 3D.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why people here have not?
> 
> 
> 
> Fill in the blank.





I think its mainly that people have only had their HDTVs for a short while (1080P sets even shorter). People finally make the plunge and then find out that there is something around the corner that MAY be better, but it is something that will be unavailable to them as they had upgraded before it was available.


personally, i went and sold my 55A950 already so i can save a little more up and get a good 3D set when they come out. i don't mind losing a small amount of money in the process, as when upgrading, that is the nature of the beast. most people, though, don't agree with having to upgrade so often.


Personally for me, i don't want to get another set now (TVs on clearance are super cheap right now) thinking i will hate 3D or that it is a gimmick, and then end up seeing it in person later and regretting my purchase of a non-3D set. If i buy a 3D set, then i at least have the option of using it, and if I don't like it, i'll disable it. Just like AMP/motionflow.


But i definately want to see it before i buy something else, just so i can make an educated purchase.


But yea, the negativity here is pretty crazy. I think 99% of the people here (myself included) haven't seen it in person yet. Except those lucky buggers who were at CES/IFA


----------



## jbug




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *whitetrash66* /forum/post/17922570
> 
> 
> I think its mainly that people have only had their HDTVs for a short while (1080P sets even shorter). People finally make the plunge and then find out that there is something around the corner that MAY be better, but it is something that will be unavailable to them as they had upgraded before it was available.
> 
> 
> personally, i went and sold my 55A950 already so i can save a little more up and get a good 3D set when they come out. i don't mind losing a small amount of money in the process, as when upgrading, that is the nature of the beast. most people, though, don't agree with having to upgrade so often.
> 
> 
> Personally for me, i don't want to get another set now (TVs on clearance are super cheap right now) thinking i will hate 3D or that it is a gimmick, and then end up seeing it in person later and regretting my purchase of a non-3D set. If i buy a 3D set, then i at least have the option of using it, and if I don't like it, i'll disable it. Just like AMP/motionflow.
> 
> 
> But i definately want to see it before i buy something else, just so i can make an educated purchase.
> 
> 
> But yea, the negativity here is pretty crazy. I think 99% of the people here (myself included) haven't seen it in person yet. Except those lucky buggers who were at CES/IFA



I sold my TV and also gave a good deal to the buyer. I'll use the cash on a 3D Plasma. The crazy hate has been popping up for a while and I also said that I was amazed to see it among AVS members. Wow! It's as if some of them had become demonized. "I hope 3D fails." I can't even imagine why someone would even think of saying that unless manufacturers said that "you are hereby forced to buy this and the glasses and the media or else." "I hope it fails" is just like saying I want it to fail which is taking it personally. It is a very ignorant statement, doesn't belong here and goes against the spirit and purpose of the AVS Forum.


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Casey_Bryson* /forum/post/17921377
> 
> 
> 
> What's NEXT? 4K sucks? or when 3D holographic imagery that matches real life comes out you'll say: "that not real"???



Even then the "I hate glasses" people will complain that you can see through the hologram , and then complain they can't watch it in a brightly lit room


----------



## 8mile13

Believe it or not,most people watch 2D and listen STEREO and will do this for

the rest of their life.Why?Because its GREAT.


----------



## indyfred

My take as to why so many people are "pissed" is the rate that things change. AVS is about the early adopters and I think they are getting tired of their new "hardware" becoming obselete (or at least not upgradeable) every time something changes. They are then required to keep what they have (and be behind the times) or spend more money to get the "latest and greatest".


----------



## Casey_Bryson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13* /forum/post/17924187
> 
> 
> Believe it or not,most people watch 2D and listen STEREO and will do this for
> 
> the rest of their life.Why?Because its GREAT.



Yes and I'm sure there is 90 year old Grandma out there saying the same of Mono because it is better than the old silent movies.


Most people I know have direct view sets and won't upgrade unless it fails. Most people that have 5.1 surround sound don't have the know how to set it up correctly.


The Masses are A$$es. What's new? We are not the masses, unless you are one of those that just recently adopted a 10 year old technology.


----------



## TomsHT




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Casey_Bryson* /forum/post/17921377
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unbelievable....I am almost speechless at the level of nescience portrayed in this forum.
> 
> 
> I hate to make my 1st post such a negative one, but maybe it will spin to the positive by the time I'm done.
> 
> 
> Are you people serious??? Are you the same people I used to talk to at the turn of the century who used to question HD by saying " I really don't see the difference" and "the technology is so infantile.....Are you serious??
> 
> 
> Have you not seen Avatar in 3D? Have you not watched a football game in life like-almost there-digital 3D? Seriously??? I thought this forum was for the hardcore AV, the early adopters, the protectors of all that is holy?
> 
> 
> What's NEXT? 4K sucks? or when 3D holographic imagery that matches real life comes out you'll say: "that not real"???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get out of your outdated (yes I said it) Home Theater and go see the "future" NOW... (or simply stated get outside and see the real world)
> 
> 
> This isn't your anaglyph 3D of old and no it's not perfect, but I dare you to see Avatar in 3D (properly configured) and then see it in 2D BACK-to-BACK or hell, wait a week if memory serves you correctly. But if you have any EYE at all you'll swear off the 2D version and anything like it instantly. Why? IT LOOKS FLAT. I hate to tell you this but the world is not flat....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a reason why Cameron is not going to make another 2D movie. There is a reason why DirecTV and ESPN3D will be broadcasting 3D worldwide this June for the World Cup. There is a reason why Hollywood and every major entertainment conglomerate have rallied behind 3D.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why people here have not?
> 
> 
> 
> Fill in the blank.



Disliking 3D has nothing to do with being anti-tech. I have spent a fortune as an early adpoter and love to upgrade. But to jump on the 3D bandwagon would cost near 5-10K, its just not worth the expense for a gimmick feature that will only occasionaly be used for a few movies. And its debatable still but most likely all will be at a cost of degrading picture quality....


----------



## bill4903485

Hello?? Early home 3D is going to come nowhere near approaching movie theatre 3D like Avatar. I feel sorry for uneducated consumers if it's sold in that manner. Anyhow we've had standard def 3D for years on CRTs and broadcast television. And those paper glasses were cheap. I don't remember people getting that excited about the effect.


Similar to that treadmill you bought after New Years that now acts as a coat rack. That is today's HDTV 3D.


----------



## pmreedjr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bill4903485* /forum/post/17924592
> 
> 
> Hello?? Early home 3D is going to come nowhere near approaching movie theatre 3D like Avatar. I feel sorry for uneducated consumers if it's sold in that manner.



Closer than you might think, Bill. Properly implemented, the shutter glass technology has the potential to be superior to the polarization technique used for Avatar, especially in the home. Full 1080P in each eye and much greater brightness. Nothing inherently wrong with polarization, but expensive to implement at home. I expect to buy in later this year and will be much more educated by that time. I've learned a great deal in the past few days in the various threads discussing 3-D and will continue to read and digest the comments of our AVS members. I won't be put off by the nay-sayers who expect it to fail, or even more surprisingly wish it to fail. I wish it to succeed and will put my money where it will support the technology and bring it into my home!


----------



## Poolrad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pmreedjr* /forum/post/17924693
> 
> 
> Closer than you might think, Bill. Properly implemented, the shutter glass technology has the potential to be superior to the polarization technique used for Avatar, especially in the home. Full 1080P in each eye and much greater brightness. Nothing inherently wrong with polarization, but expensive to implement at home. I expect to buy in later this year and will be much more educated by that time. I've learned a great deal in the past few days in the various threads discussing 3-D and will continue to read and digest the comments of our AVS members. I won't be put off by the nay-sayers who expect it to fail, or even more surprisingly wish it to fail. I wish it to succeed and will put my money where it will support the technology and bring it into my home!



I'm in the same boat, after seeing Avatar in 3D 4 times now I am in full support of this technology for my home & will be researching & purchasing once I see the right opportunity. I'm really shocked though at the AVS attitude, I too thought this was a board for early adopter tech freaks but after reading the many 3D threads all I see is hate, ill will, and a resistance to change. Yes your new shiny toy may not be able to run 3D but so what, technology advancements can come slowly & sometimes quickly. Embrace the continued advancements of the industry.


----------



## TomsHT




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pmreedjr* /forum/post/17924693
> 
> 
> Closer than you might think, Bill. Properly implemented, the shutter glass technology has the potential to be superior to the polarization technique used for Avatar, especially in the home. Full 1080P in each eye and much greater brightness. Nothing inherently wrong with polarization, but expensive to implement at home. I expect to buy in later this year and will be much more educated by that time. I've learned a great deal in the past few days in the various threads discussing 3-D and will continue to read and digest the comments of our AVS members. I won't be put off by the nay-sayers who expect it to fail, or even more surprisingly wish it to fail. I wish it to succeed and will put my money where it will support the technology and bring it into my home!



I would suggest continuing your research then. 3D will need to take up larges amounts of additional space; up to 50% more according to reports. And despite the cheerleaders saying that compression will handle this its just plain not realistic to think they can squeeze that much more data per disc without reducing picture quality otherwise they would have already been doing it.


----------



## TomsHT




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Poolrad* /forum/post/17924726
> 
> 
> I'm in the same boat, after seeing Avatar in 3D 4 times now I am in full support of this technology for my home & will be researching & purchasing once I see the right opportunity. I'm really shocked though at the AVS attitude, I too thought this was a board for early adopter tech freaks but after reading the many 3D threads all I see is hate, ill will, and a resistance to change. Yes your new shiny toy may not be able to run 3D but so what, technology advancements can come slowly & sometimes quickly. Embrace the continued advancements of the industry.



Avatar was excellent and I would love to have it in 3d in my HT but how many movies like Avatar would be needed to justify the expense? Certainly a single movie doesnt make it worth buying a new tv, projector, receiver, bd player, glasses, cables etc...


----------



## Poolrad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TomsHT* /forum/post/17924774
> 
> 
> Avatar was excellent and I would love to have it in 3d in my HT but how many movies like Avatar would be needed to justify the expense? Certainly a single movie doesnt make it worth buying a new tv, projector, receiver, bd player, glasses, cables etc...



A single good movie like Avatar will sell hardware, I already have a PS3 so that covers the BD Player. Most early adopters of technology have enough money to spend on their hobbies such as these, so if they want it they will buy it. I will be spending money.


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TomsHT* /forum/post/17924774
> 
> 
> Avatar was excellent and I would love to have it in 3d in my HT but how many movies like Avatar would be needed to justify the expense? Certainly a single movie doesnt make it worth buying a new tv, projector, receiver, bd player, glasses, cables etc...



So don't buy it. I don't think the vast majority have crazy setups like you people. Most have what 1 good TV and maybe surround sound? If you have a ps3 you won't need to upgrade a blu-ray player. Maybe you were already in the market for a new/upgraded set?


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Poolrad* /forum/post/17924895
> 
> 
> A single good movie like Avatar will sell hardware, I already have a PS3 so that covers the BD Player. Most early adopters of technology have enough money to spend on their hobbies such as these, so if they want it they will buy it. I will be spending money.



I hope to be getting a new TV around the end of this year, plenty of time for sales and reviews to come out. I don't think I could watch Avatar in 2D.


----------



## TomsHT




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Poolrad* /forum/post/17924895
> 
> 
> A single good movie like Avatar will sell hardware, I already have a PS3 so that covers the BD Player. Most early adopters of technology have enough money to spend on their hobbies such as these, so if they want it they will buy it. I will be spending money.



I have put 40k into my home theater and think I could afford it if I wanted it but plain and simple there isnt enough content to make it worth it!


----------



## Poolrad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TomsHT* /forum/post/17924923
> 
> 
> I have put 40k into my home theater and think I could afford it if I wanted it but plain and simple there isnt enough content to make it worth it!



Lets be honest, you have an awesome setup as I've looked at it before. At some point this year 3D is going to hit the stores & content is going to come out. You're the same type of guy that I am and will want the latest gadget & the best quality components of the newest technology. I suspect by this time next year you'll have pictures up of your new 3D HT.


----------



## pmreedjr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TomsHT* /forum/post/17924764
> 
> 
> I would suggest continuing your research then. 3D will need to take up larges amounts of additional space; up to 50% more according to reports. And despite the cheerleaders saying that compression will handle this its just plain not realistic to think they can squeeze that much more data per disc without reducing picture quality otherwise they would have already been doing it.



I certainly will continue to do my research. I figure I've got 6 to 8 months before I jump into the new equipment. And you're right, of course, I was only addressing the display technology and didn't address the source material. Sources may be slow in coming, though several networks have stated their intention to launch 3-D material in the 2nd quarter. I've no idea what will become available on BD for the future; but rest assured it will come............and I'll be ready for it.









Remember, HD programming requires much greater data density than SD, and we're rapidly gaining more and more HD sources, the additional data to achieve 3-D programming is an incremental increase over existing HD requirements, not the fourfold increase required in the SD to HD transition. Like Kevin Costner, I'm also a believer...I'll buy/build my 3-D system and it will come. Besides, what's the real additional expense. Any new HDTV I buy will work, I've no problem replacing my Sylvania BD player I picked up in an Amazon Gold-box deal, and I'm open to replacing my old 1.3 spec. receiver with an HDMI 1.4 spec piece. A few hundred bucks for some shutter glasses, and I'm good to go. Hey, can't put all of Avatar on one 30 Gig disc? Heck, an intermission works for me. I saw a lot of people in the theater rushing to the bathrooms when it was over.

I guess that I'm just ready for this and Avatar cemented my resolve. I won't buy blindly, but I will buy enthusiastically.


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TomsHT* /forum/post/17924542
> 
> 
> Disliking 3D has nothing to do with being anti-tech. I have spent a fortune as an early adpoter and love to upgrade. But to jump on the 3D bandwagon would cost near 5-10K, its just not worth the expense for a gimmick feature that will only occasionaly be used for a few movies. And its debatable still but most likely all will be at a cost of degrading picture quality....



I have no issue with someone who is indifferent to 3D. It's the dislike, in some cases verging on _hatred_, that is so hard to understand







No-one will be forced to buy anything and 3D can be switched off.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Casey_Bryson* /forum/post/17924499
> 
> 
> Yes and I'm sure there is 90 year old Grandma out there saying the same of Mono because it is better than the old silent movies.



Do you mean 2D and STEREO sucks?


----------



## QZ1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TomsHT* /forum/post/17924774
> 
> 
> Avatar was excellent and I would love to have it in 3d in my HT but how many movies like Avatar would be needed to justify the expense? Certainly a single movie doesnt make it worth buying a new tv, projector, receiver, bd player, glasses, cables etc...



Virtually nobody else would say, if I can't get a 3D TV _and_ a 3D projector, I won't get either. Choose one or the other, as a new 3D monitor.


Panasonic's 3D Blu-Ray has two HDMI outputs, so a new HDMI 1.4 AVR is not necessary. I don't know what, if any, is the minimum spec. of HDMI needed, when using two HDMI outputs for 3D. My guess is first gen. would be fine, since there is no qualification listed on that Panasonic BD player, at least not yet.


Yes, obviously, a new 3D Blu-Ray player is needed.


Extra glasses, usually, will be needed, varying by household. I don't know how much they will cost.


Cables are peanuts at Monoprice and a few other vendors, and they are very good quality. Though, maybe you buy into some of the very expensive specialty cables; many don't, some do.


----------



## PrimeTime




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/17908692
> 
> 
> I can't believe all the hatred of new technology on this forum. I'm going to assume it's because there are many people that just spent a lot of money on new TVs that just found out that something better is right around the corner.



It's worth remembering that AVS is probably _the_ main watering hole for Pioneer/Kuro owners.


As such, you're going to hear a lot of kvetching here about anything new that might eclipse a rather expensive discontinued product that some have elevated to mystical status.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PrimeTime* /forum/post/17928135
> 
> 
> It's worth remembering that AVS is probably _the_ main watering hole for Pioneer/Kuro owners.
> 
> 
> As such, you're going to hear a lot of kvetching here about anything new that might eclipse a rather expensive discontinued product that some have elevated to mystical status.



I would even agree with Kuro owners that they have something special. I was even envious of them, and I almost bought one myself a couple of years ago. However, I was very pleased to hear at the Panasonic booth at CES that Panasonic is starting to use some of the technology that they bought. The picture on the 65 VT25 is going to look very similar to a picture on the Kuro with deep blacks, and with the added bonus of more rapidly decaying phosphors, higher frame rate, and 3D capability. That is the one I am leaning toward getting as soon as it becomes available. The weird situation we're in right now is that a lot of us know what is coming, and we're willing to wait for it. The manufacturers can't really start advertising 3D yet. They need to keep the general public in the dark for a few more months, otherwise the sales of current TVs would certainly slow down. By April though, I would imagine that they will be touting the 3D sets, and the programming. By the middle of the summer EVERYONE should know about 3D, be able to see demos in the stores, and have access to 3D programming--whether it's DirecTVs' 24 hour all 3D channel or 3D Blu-ray. The people that will be the most upset are the people that buy a new TV between now and then, not knowing what's coming.


----------



## TomsHT

According to an article yesterday in the New York times; cable/sat broadcast 3D shows will have a 50% loss in picture quality from the normal HDTV broadcast shows. Broadcast HD has only a slight improvement in quality compared to there SD counter parts but I think most would agree hd broadcasts are still littered with quality problems. Reducing that quality by half is gonna be a huge deal breaker for most HDTV owners.


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TomsHT* /forum/post/17929908
> 
> 
> According to an article yesterday in the New York times; cable/sat broadcast 3D shows will have a 50% loss in picture quality from the normal HDTV broadcast shows. Broadcast HD has only a slight improvement in quality compared to there SD counter parts but I think most would agree hd broadcasts are still littered with quality problems. Reducing that quality by half is gonna be a huge deal breaker for most HDTV owners.



Yes, because I get all my tech news and upcoming info from the New York Times.


----------



## TomsHT

Ya dont need much knoweldge to confirm that broadcast bandwidth is limited...


----------



## PrimeTime




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/17928560
> 
> 
> The weird situation we're in right now is that a lot of us know what is coming, and we're willing to wait for it. The manufacturers can't really start advertising 3D yet. They need to keep the general public in the dark for a few more months, otherwise the sales of current TVs would certainly slow down. By April though, I would imagine that they will be touting the 3D sets, and the programming.



What with _Avatar_ and the dispatches from CES, I don't think anyone is "in the dark" about 3-D at the moment.


Fortunately for the manufacturers, the recession forced them to pare down their production forecasts for the 2009 models that are the current inventory. Now they are reaping the promotional benefits of _Avatar_. We will know how well they have dovetailed the new and the old by how soon the 2009 models disappear. I've seen the word "Closeout" used on a few models, but it keeps reappearing week after week.


The 50-inch plasma got down to six Benjamins for a couple of days before Xmas. We might see that again when they're ready to ship the new ones (can you say _"Super Bowl"_?). If you're one of the people who think 3-D is bull (and are not obsessed with Infinite Blacks), then you should be primed for what may turn out to be some great deals on the last of the 2009 units.


----------



## Casey_Bryson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13* /forum/post/17925182
> 
> 
> Do you mean 2D and STEREO sucks?



Now you're starting to sound like a troll.


I'm saying it is all relative. Why would you have mono, when you can have stereo. Ergo why would you have stereo when you can have surround.


And finally why would you watch Avatar in 2D when you can have it the way it was designed: 3D.


There are 85+ movies being developed for 3D as we speak. Coincidently there are 85 live events ESPN3D is broadcasting this year. We all know what HD was like initially and 3D seems to have more support.


----------



## Casey_Bryson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TomsHT* /forum/post/17924774
> 
> 
> Avatar was excellent and I would love to have it in 3d in my HT but how many movies like Avatar would be needed to justify the expense? Certainly a single movie doesnt make it worth buying a new tv, projector, receiver, bd player, glasses, cables etc...





TomsHT;17924774Disliking 3D has nothing to do with being anti-tech. I have spent a fortune as an early adpoter and love to upgrade. But to jump on the 3D bandwagon would cost near 5-10K said:


> So which is it Tom? Do you like 3D or do you not? It sounds like you do but you just can't justify getting it just yet.
> 
> 
> So why all the negativity? No need to be such a Debbie Downer about something you like.
> 
> 
> And so far as justifying the expense is concerned; that is up to you. Just know that 2009 was just the kick off party. Avatar is going to take over Titanic and no one thought that we'd see it so soon and especially from Avatar. Think that hollywood and anyone executives with $$$ are taking notice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Star Wars is going to be released in 3D and we've already seen Toy Story come and go. There are 85+ new movies being produced as we speak...there will be more to come...it's just the beginning. And I haven't even talked about the 85 sports events from ESPN3D this year. I wish HD would have had that nice of a launch.
> 
> 
> If you don't want to be an early adopter it's okay...relax.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Casey_Bryson* /forum/post/17932065
> 
> 
> Now you're starting to sound like a troll.
> 
> 
> I'm saying it is all relative. Why would you have mono, when you can have stereo. Ergo why would you have stereo when you can have surround.
> 
> 
> And finally why would you watch Avatar in 2D when you can have it the way it was designed: 3D.
> 
> 
> There are 85+ movies being developed for 3D as we speak. Coincidently there are 85 live events ESPN3D is broadcasting this year. We all know what HD was like initially and 3D seems to have more support.



Stereo is a improvement,not everybody agrees that surround is a

improvement.

HD is a improvement,not everybody agrees 3D is a improvement.


If people like and embrace surround/3D thats ok with me.

I enjoy watching movies in 2Dstereo and i enjoy listening music in stereo..


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13* /forum/post/17932637
> 
> 
> Stereo is a improvement,not everybody agrees that surround is a
> 
> improvement.
> 
> HD is a improvement,not everybody agrees 3D is a improvement.
> 
> 
> If people like and embrace surround/3D thats ok with me.
> 
> I enjoy watching movies in 2Dstereo and i enjoy listening music in stereo..



Why don't you think Surround is an improvement?


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TomsHT* /forum/post/17929908
> 
> 
> According to an article yesterday in the New York times; cable/sat broadcast 3D shows will have a 50% loss in picture quality from the normal HDTV broadcast shows. Broadcast HD has only a slight improvement in quality compared to there SD counter parts but I think most would agree hd broadcasts are still littered with quality problems. Reducing that quality by half is gonna be a huge deal breaker for most HDTV owners.



This 50% loss is grossly exaggerated. Visual loss should be very minor if visible at all. The 50% number if simply minded estimation: the 3D broadcast will be based on pictures which have half size downscaling in vertical direction which implies the 50% loss. But the pictures will be upscaled on the receiving side. The downscaling and upscaling operations can be done very precisely and can be optimised jointly with compression. Since the pictures are heavily compressed anyway, the loss o visual quality due to scaling will be very small, and on top of this, it will be masked by 3D effects. 3D artefacts are much more serious problem to worry about.


----------



## Artwood

There's one thing you can count on--if there is ever any chance of Direct-TV compressing down so that resolution goes down they will take advantage of it.


Their ultimate goal is 1 trillion channels with SD quality and still being able to claim that they're HD or 3-D.


----------



## Jonesky

I'd like to just get an HD channel package and forgo SD entirely. Try that at your local cable company....


----------



## QZ1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TomsHT* /forum/post/17929908
> 
> 
> According to an article yesterday in the New York times; *cable/sat broadcast 3D shows will have a 50% loss in picture quality from the normal HDTV broadcast shows. Broadcast HD has only a slight improvement in quality compared to there SD counter parts but I think most would agree hd broadcasts are still littered with quality problems.* Reducing that quality by half is gonna be a huge deal breaker for most HDTV owners.



MSOs, who care _at least somewhat_ about PQ, (many do), will allocate the necessary bandwith for the few 3D HD channels, launching in the near future. As we get more 3D, many should have the bandwith. They aren't going to keep adding HD channels, just for the heck of it. Also, major cable MSOs are ditching much of Analog.


If it comes down to bandwith, they know they would do better offering ESPN HD 3D, than some low rated cable channel that decided to go HD. Even if it is 50%, it would take two HD 3D channels to have to scrap plans for another given HD channel.


HD, here with Comcast, is more than 'slightly' better than SD. Depending on the source, I would characterize it as anywhere from 'moderately' to 'greatly' better; many here over the years have similar sentiments. Of course, a few providers' quality is sub-standard -and/or- some people have an inadequate screen size and/or viewing distance.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dallows* /forum/post/17932982
> 
> 
> Why don't you think Surround is an improvement?



Watching a movie with a stereo-set makes more sence to me:a screen

in front of me for my eyes and the stereo-set for my left/right ear,

simple and effective.


I am watching tv, looking with my eyes in front of me,while using

surround there are sounds coming from everywhere.

If there was a technology that would allow me to be literally in the

middle of the movie surround would make perfect sence to me.


Maybe surround is a improvement,i don't know,i don't get it.


----------



## bill4903485

I can't wait for the follow-up posts by those having spent thousands on over-hyped 3D televisions angry because it doesn't resemble Avatar 3D quality. Only a few more months to go.


----------



## TomsHT




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bill4903485* /forum/post/17934884
> 
> 
> I can't wait for the follow-up posts by those having spent thousands on over-hyped 3D televisions angry because it doesn't resemble Avatar 3D quality. Only a few more months to go.



I hope it does look great but a single movie still isnt worth spending thousands for...


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bill4903485* /forum/post/17934884
> 
> 
> I can't wait for the follow-up posts by those having spent thousands on over-hyped 3D televisions angry because it doesn't resemble Avatar 3D quality. Only a few more months to go.



Now, I agree that anyone who buys a 3D TV sight unseen is certainly asking for your rebuke










What do you think they might be seeing on a 3D TV demo ? Cameron is certainly going to allow a clip or two from Avatar on the 3D BluRay demo disc if it helps push 3D out into TV-land.


----------



## Figgie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jcricket* /forum/post/17867974
> 
> 
> Just like none of us could imagine going back to CRTs (although I remember many people claiming flat panels would never be as good color-wise as CRTs) or SD viewing ("what's the point in that for most programs?") I think 3-D will eventually get there.
> 
> 
> Just not for a while. Far faster will be the adoption of flat-screens everywhere, esp. if wireless HDMI and lighter-weight become the norm. Imagine TVs you can just plug into power and hang with a couple picture hooks.
> 
> 
> 3-D is pretty far out there for many people who haven't even gotten HD yet, but good on the manufacturers for pushing the envelope. I just don't plan on watching 3-D at home for a decade.



You are joking right? Pushing envelope on 3d??????



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tlh1005* /forum/post/17868229
> 
> 
> Sometimes we get awesome innovation and products from new ventures and sometimes we get technology that is dead on arrival, but we don't get anything without trying.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *walt73* /forum/post/17869482
> 
> 
> What a howler. A person naming him/herself "GobbityGotz" calls 3D technology "infantile".
> 
> 
> Like surround sound, 3D will prove too demanding for some to be able to enjoy. What else is new?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dallows* /forum/post/17867563
> 
> 
> Reading this is kinda funny. I like seeing so many people bitter over new technology.



I knew my worthless knowledge would come in handy some day!!


3d with shutter glasses is not new and it definetly is NOT innovative.


Unless of course you think 1989 is "new" (and for those of you math challenged, that is 21 years ago)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMoMbXZCbT4 


look at that, shutter glasses and 3d on regular *CRT*!!!


OOOOHHHH AHHHH. (you guys are comical to say the least!).










So let see, what is different in 2010... the frequency has been upped, but still the SAME shutter glasses. You would have thought that 21 years of 3d would have yielded SOME type of improvements!


This will be round 7 of 3d attempting to make it mainstream. Like the previous 6 rounds. It will fade, and then come as another inovation down the line. Rinse lather, repeat.


and in case anyone is wondering. That is the Sega Master system. The ONLY reason I remember those 3d "shutter" glasses. I owned a pair along with numerous of the games. NVidia has tried the 3d shutter glasses on the pc market with dismal ROI.


Funny to the people thinking this 3d stuff was even REMOTELY new..... guess we know who the tech folks are around here!


----------



## zoro

I saw this horrendous no game changing gimmick crafted by industry to shove $5-$10k/person, after a bad year of sales!


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Figgie* /forum/post/17935263
> 
> 
> You are joking right? Pushing envelope on 3d??????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew my worthless knowledge would come in handy some day!!
> 
> 
> 3d with shutter glasses is not new and it definetly is NOT innovative.
> 
> 
> Unless of course you think 1989 is "new"
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMoMbXZCbT4
> 
> 
> look at that, shutter glasses and 3d on regular CRT!!!
> 
> 
> OOOOHHHH AHHHH. (you guys are comical to say the least!).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This will be round 7 of 3d attempting to make it mainstream. Like the previous 6 rounds. It will fade, and then come as another inovation down the line. Rinse lather, repeat.
> 
> 
> and in case anyone is wondering. That is the Sega Master system. The ONLY reason I remember those 3d "shutter" glasses. I owned a pair along with numerous of the games. NVidia has tried the 3d shutter glasses on the pc market with dismal ROI.
> 
> 
> Funny to the people thinking this 3d stuff was even REMOTELY new..... guess we know who the tech folks are around here!



Fine you're right. 3D has been around forever.


But what about the surrounding tech? HD, Plasma, LCD, LED, OLED, the new 3D cameras. You don't think any of that helps... just a little? Maybe...?


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bill4903485* /forum/post/17934884
> 
> 
> I can't wait for the follow-up posts by those having spent thousands on over-hyped 3D televisions angry because it doesn't resemble Avatar 3D quality. Only a few more months to go.



I thought I read somewhere that one person thought it actually looked better than the theater. I don't have many accounts of this though.


----------



## Figgie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dallows* /forum/post/17935309
> 
> 
> Fine you're right. 3D has been around forever.
> 
> 
> But what about the surrounding tech? HD, Plasma, LCD, LED, OLED, the new 3D cameras. You don't think any of that helps... just a little? Maybe...?



Not in the least.


So instead of having a SD image now we have Hi-def.... but still require those beautiful shutter glasses. Oohhhh ahhh! Let me pop the $5 champagne bottle so we can celebrate!


Same "technology" + higher frequency = better? Not even close. Of course the next iteration will be 720hz 3d with "shutter" glasses. This time, no Headaches (we mean it)!! lol.


----------



## TomsHT

I think even the 3D cheerleaders admit that it will be 5-10 years before HT-3D fully takes off. Plane and simple they just dont have the hardware distributed, storage & bandwidth capacity and no where near close to enough content for this to take off currently. If in the future this changes, then they again would be wanting everyone to replace there 1st gen 3d equipment for the new.


Content Is King and a hundred movies (most of it cartoons) isnt gonna cut it, specially when saying people will need to spend thousands of dollars for it. And its all gonna go right down the toilet when it is released and the consumers find out the picture quality is less then they get now.


I think they would have had a better chance if they released the specs with the launch of the HD format wars when everyone did start upgrading to high def players, receivers, and new tvs.


----------



## Figgie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TomsHT* /forum/post/17935343
> 
> 
> I think even the 3D cheerleaders admit that it will be 5-10 years before HT-3D fully takes off. Plane and simple they just dont have the hardware distributed, storage & bandwidth capacity and no where near close to enough content for this to take off currently. If in the future this changes, then they again would be wanting everyone to replace there 1st gen 3d equipment for the new.
> 
> 
> Content Is King and a hundred movies (most of it cartoons) isnt gonna cut it, specially when saying people will need to spend thousands of dollars for it. And its all gonna go right down the toilet when it is released and the consumers find out the picture quality is less then they get now.
> 
> 
> I think they would have had a better chance if they released the specs with the launch of the HD format wars when everyone did start upgrading to high def players, receivers, and new tvs.



even then


3d has been available for pc for quite some time thanks to Nvidia, it is no more a niche there than it has always been in the previous generations on consoles. So I play the statistical odds, and say, failure #7... here it comes!


----------



## zoro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TomsHT* /forum/post/17935343
> 
> 
> I think even the 3D cheerleaders admit that it will be 5-10 years before HT-3D fully takes off. Plane and simple they just dont have the hardware distributed, storage & bandwidth capacity and no where near close to enough content for this to take off currently. If in the future this changes, then they again would be wanting everyone to replace there 1st gen 3d equipment for the new.
> 
> 
> Content Is King and a hundred movies (most of it cartoons) isnt gonna cut it, specially when saying people will need to spend thousands of dollars for it. And its all gonna go right down the toilet when it is released and the consumers find out the picture quality is less then they get now.
> 
> 
> I think they would have had a better chance if they released the specs with the launch of the HD format wars when everyone did start upgrading to high def players, receivers, and new tvs.



I think it will go SACD, DVD AUDIO way just for connaisseurs! For rest it will be hit or miss!


----------



## TomsHT




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Casey_Bryson* /forum/post/17932161
> 
> 
> So which is it Tom? Do you like 3D or do you not? It sounds like you do but you just can't justify getting it just yet.
> 
> 
> So why all the negativity? No need to be such a Debbie Downer about something you like.
> 
> 
> And so far as justifying the expense is concerned; that is up to you. Just know that 2009 was just the kick off party. Avatar is going to take over Titanic and no one thought that we'd see it so soon and especially from Avatar. Think that hollywood and anyone executives with $$$ are taking notice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Star Wars is going to be released in 3D and we've already seen Toy Story come and go. There are 85+ new movies being produced as we speak...there will be more to come...it's just the beginning. And I haven't even talked about the 85 sports events from ESPN3D this year. I wish HD would have had that nice of a launch.
> 
> 
> If you don't want to be an early adopter it's okay...relax.



Yes I do like 3D and no I cant justify the expense there isnt enough content period. And the reason for negativity is that the lesser quality will effect all users! TV and Blu-ray simply can not fit up to 50% more data without taking a performance hit. If movies could be further compressed now without losing quality they would be doing it now and saving money releasing everything on 25g discs.


85 movies is a joke! Out of that 85, exclude cartoons and slasher movies and how many are left? BD has what 2 thousand movies out and out of that, peoples personal choices probably filter that down to 1 to 10% (just a guess) of movies that actually want to own. So its not like out of 85 movies everyone is going to want to rent/purchase all of them. Probably closer to 1-8 movies.


As to Star Wars, well were still waiting for them on BR, 3 years later and still no release date. But yes they also mention LOTR coming to 3D, how much of a perfomance hit is that going to take to put a 4 hour movie on a BR disc that will now require up to 50% more data to be put on for 3D. Wishfull thinking if you think that isnt going to be of lesser picture quality.


----------



## TomsHT




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zoro* /forum/post/17935390
> 
> 
> I think it will go SACD, DVD AUDIO way just for connaisseurs! For rest it will be hit or miss!



I cant even see it gaining that much popularity. With the things mentioned above, you only needed to replace a player and content. With this it could wind up being TV, PJ, AV receiver, glasses, cables, content etc.... All this and to gain picture quality that there saying will be half the resolution of current broadcast HD resolution.


----------



## Figgie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TomsHT* /forum/post/17935426
> 
> 
> I cant even see it gaining that much popularity. With the things mentioned above, you only needed to replace a player and content. With this it could wind up being TV, PJ, AV receiver, glasses, cables, content etc.... All this and to gain picture quality that there saying will be half the resolution of current broadcast HD resolution.



Yes!


also add to that HDMI 1.4 will be a REQUIREMENT for 3d. HDMI 1.3 that we use today won't handle it!

http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdm...1_4_faq.aspx#1 


Rooooh Rooooh!


----------



## fire407

You guys seem to be missing the point. It's only nerds like us that actually care about the maximum picture quality. The average person is going to see 3D and realize that they can see Avatar and whatever else comes down the pike, and the extra dimension is going to make up for any drop in quality. Also, I'm very picky about quality and I was amazed at how good 3D looked at CES. The Blu-ray movies will be full 1920X1080 for each eye and the sample I saw didn't show any compression artifacts. It's coming--THIS YEAR--whether you want it to or not, and I am looking forward to it. I would guess that in two years you won't be able to buy a TV that's not 3D capable. I'm sure the first 3D Blu-ray players will cost a lot, but again, in a few years Walmart will have one for $100 or less. Some people will complain about having to wear glasses, but they don't seem to mind when they go the theater now. I dare say that everyone here that is against 3D now will someday be sitting with shuttered glasses on watching 3D and thinking it's pretty cool.


----------



## Matt L

In your dreams.....


----------



## TomsHT

What a joke, arguing that picture quality doesnt matter...

Do you really think that the consumer that doesnt care about picture quality is then going to spend thousands of dollars to get a 3D HDTV for what everone is referencing (Avatar) a single friggin movie...


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Matt L* /forum/post/17935891
> 
> 
> In your dreams.....



So you're saying that you will NEVER watch a 3D movie on TV with the shuttered glasses technology that is coming very soon? I'm pretty sure you and everyone else will.


----------



## TomsHT

wishfull thinking


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TomsHT* /forum/post/17937713
> 
> 
> What a joke, arguing that picture quality doesnt matter...
> 
> Do you really think that the consumer that doesnt care about picture quality is then going to spend thousands of dollars to get a 3D HDTV for what everone is referencing (Avatar) a single friggin movie...



Just so you know, picture quality does matter to me. I got into HDTV 12 years ago when it was really expensive. I got a JVC DHS deck to watch recorded HD. I was pissed when the first Blu-ray movies didn't approach the quality of the D-Theater tapes that I had. I will get a new 3D Blu-ray player to get full 1920X1080 resolution for each eye in 3D. Many on this forum(most people on this forum care about quality) will be satisfied to watch 3D Blu-ray movies on their PS3 with half resolution over HDMI 1.3. The general public will see some displays of 3D using the PS3 as a player, and they will still think it looks good. Personally I want the ultimate quality, but I'm realistic enough to know that the general public doesn't have the same standards as I do. Also, I also realize that after I get my new 3D TV, my new 3D Blu-ray player, and the new 3D channels are available on DirecTV, almost all of my TV viewing will still be 2D. Fortunately the new TVs will produce excellent 2D images. You may not want 3D to even be available to anyone, but after seeing the demos at CES, I can assure you it is not going to go away.


----------



## 8mile13

I am disappointed with sat/cable HD its a joke compared to 1080P bluray ,3D will also be disappointing on sat/cable.


----------



## walford

I know of no requirement for HDMI 1.4 for full 1920x1080 content in each eye from Blu-Ray since Blu-ray will be sending the content to the TV at 1080p/48 and HDMI 1.3 has no trouble today handling 1080p/60 from PC graphics cards to those PC monitore or HDTVs that will accept it. Yes it appears that the cable and satellite will be using 960x1080p for each eye since they will be transfer side by sides fields using 1080p/24.


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13* /forum/post/17934361
> 
> 
> Watching a movie with a stereo-set makes more sence to me:a screen
> 
> in front of me for my eyes and the stereo-set for my left/right ear,
> 
> simple and effective.



What I don't get about this logic is : if one picture is enough for both eyes, why isn't one speaker enough for both ears (the brain will figure out what in the image made the sound)? And if you say, e.g., sounds from the right of the picture need to appear to come from the right side of the screen, then the same logic applies to the images for each eye - objects that are closer to you need to appear closer. ???


> Quote:
> I am watching tv, looking with my eyes in front of me,while using
> 
> surround there are sounds coming from everywhere.



Now if something in the movie has just gone behind the camera but is still making a loud noise (chopper, tank, car etc) it makes _more_ sense to have the sound come from _in front of you_ with the stereo speakers, even though the object is _behind_ you? In real life you can be looking forward and hearing things from behind you, right?


I have no issue with your preferences and how you rationalize your set-up, but I wouldn't call it logic


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AJSJones* /forum/post/17939177
> 
> 
> What I don't get about this logic is : if one picture is enough for both eyes, why isn't one speaker enough for both ears (the brain will figure out what in the image made the sound)? And if you say, e.g., sounds from the right of the picture need to appear to come from the right side of the screen, then the same logic applies to the images for each eye - objects that are closer to you need to appear closer. ???
> 
> 
> Now if something in the movie has just gone behind the camera but is still making a loud noise (chopper, tank, car etc) it makes _more_ sense to have the sound come from _in front of you_ with the stereo speakers, even though the object is _behind_ you? In real life you can be looking forward and hearing things from behind you, right?
> 
> 
> I have no issue with your preferences and how you rationalize your set-up, but I wouldn't call it logic



If my ears are my eyes i would only need one speaker,if my eyes are

my ears i would need two screens.


The movie is in front of me ,not behind me,i am outside the movie not

inside,i'm not identical with the camera.

First person view in a videogame means you are the camera.

Waching a first person view movie with surround could make sence.


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> If my ears are my eyes i would only need one speaker,if my eyes are
> 
> my ears i would need two screens.



Errr, umm, yeah, well. At least now I think I can hear why you see it that way










Ooops, I think I meant

Errr, umm, yeah, well. At least now I think I can see why you hear it that way


----------



## QZ1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *walford* /forum/post/17939135
> 
> *I know of no requirement for HDMI 1.4 for full 1920x1080 content in each eye from Blu-Ray since Blu-ray will be sending the content to the TV at 1080p/48 and HDMI 1.3 has no trouble today handling 1080p/60 from PC graphics cards to those PC monitore or HDTVs that will accept it.* Yes it appears that the cable and satellite will be using 960x1080p for each eye since they will be transfer side by sides fields using 1080p/24.



Well, either one HDMI 1.4 output or two HDMI outputs, to get HDMI audio and video with 3D HD, according to this article:

http://ces.cnet.com/8301-31045_1-10427858-269.html 

_"The reason for the dual ports is to deal with the fact that 3D Blu-ray requires HDMI 1.4 and all existing AV receivers only support HDMI 1.3. The Panasonic DMP-BDT350 will integrate more easily with existing AV receivers, by sending the high-bandwidth 3D video directly to your HDTV, and the audio to the receiver. Other 3D Blu-ray players will require new HDMI 1.4 AV receivers if you want to use HDMI for audio."_


----------



## walford

According to the following link there is no high bandwidth HDMI requirement with the currently approved BR disk 3D standard;

http://hd.engadget.com/2010/01/12/hd...de-by-side-3d/ 


I can not find any reference that backs up the high bandwidth claim in the CNET article.


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wiki wrote* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Version 1.4
> 
> World's first HDMI 1.4 cable released by Cablesson on June 22, 2009.[105]
> 
> HDMI 1.4 was released on May 28, 2009, and Silicon Image expects their first HDMI 1.4 products to sample in the second half of 2009.[53][106] HDMI 1.4 increases the maximum resolution to 4K × 2K (3840×2160p at 24Hz/25Hz/30Hz and 4096×2160p at 24Hz, which is a resolution used with digital theaters); an HDMI Ethernet Channel, which allows for a 100 Mb/s Ethernet connection between the two HDMI connected devices; and introduces an Audio Return Channel, *3D Over HDMI (HDMI 1.3 devices will only support this for 1080i)*, a new Micro HDMI Connector, expanded support for color spaces, and an Automotive Connection System. HDMI 1.4 supports several stereoscopic 3D formats including field alternative (interlaced), frame alternative, frame packing, line alternative, side-by-side half, side-by-side full, 2D + depth, and 2D + depth + graphics + graphics depth, with top/bottom half and full formats to be added in January 2010. HDMI 1.4 requires that 3D displays support the frame packing 3D formats at either 720p50 and 1080p24 or 720p60 and 1080p24*. High Speed HDMI 1.3 cables can support all HDMI 1.4 features except for the HDMI Ethernet Channel
> 
> 
> HDMI version......................................1.3....1.4
> 
> Maximum signal bandwidth (MHz)..........340....340
> 
> Maximum TMDS bandwidth (Gbit/s)........10.2...10.2
> 
> Maximum video bandwidth (Gbit/s).........8.16...8.16
> 
> Maximum audio bandwidth (Mbit/s) ......36.86.36.86


 There is no change in bandwidth between 1.3 and 1.4 


* This is a minimum. Manufacturers can use other packing formats but all 3D displays using HDMI 1.4 *must* support these. I think the PS3 firmware upgrade will get through using one of these. TBD


----------



## Nielo TM

Exactly!


The only differences between the two are the protocols



If the HDMI controller is programmable, I don't see why it can't be updated to 1.4.



However, there is no point if the video decoder is fixed because it needs to support the new MVC to decode the SS3D stream.



PS: Always take information from c|net with a pinch of salt. They are not exactly the best source for technical information.


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13* /forum/post/17938844
> 
> 
> I am disappointed with sat/cable HD its a joke compared to 1080P bluray ,3D will also be disappointing on sat/cable.



Not if they use the newly formed MVC, which is an extension of H264


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *optivity* /forum/post/17878042
> 
> 
> I should note that 3D TVs have been on the market for years. Mitsubishi has been touting the 3D capabilities of its DLP HDTVs, mainly as a key differentiator for games. Did you know that? No? That probably means there hasn't been a huge market for it. In a post-Avatar and ESPN 3D world, that will certainly change. But it will also take a while before 3D TV really goes mainstream.



RP-DLP wasn't exactly loved by all and completely dead in many countries.


PS: The DLP system that utilized polarized method does not provide full res per eye as it superimposes them onto a single image.


Anyway, lets see how all this plays out


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/17941287
> 
> 
> Not if they use the newly formed MVC, which is an extension of H264



Cable and Satellite can't handle high-quality,bluray can.


----------



## Nielo TM

?


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/17942883
> 
> 
> ?



I have a fullHD1080Ptv and a HDsatelliet-receiver both have a good

reputation, i also owned a HDcable-receiver for a year.


I can see day in day out how strange cable/satHD looks compared to bluray.

I do not believe this can be fixed,you do.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13* /forum/post/17942985
> 
> 
> I can see day in day out how strange cable/satHD looks compared to bluray.
> 
> I do not believe this can be fixed,you do.



It may be getting even worse. This is related to the bitstream rate allocated for compressed video. For Blue Ray it is 25 Mb/s and even 50 Mb/s discs exist. HD TV has nowadays around 10 Mb/s. Since broadcast bandwidth is expensive there is a pressure to reduce the bit rate to a bare minimum and even cut corners. One can say that Blue Ray is and will preserve consistent quality, broadcast not. It may not be a long time when broadcasters will introduce new 'premium' HD HQ channels trying to milk money from adding few megabits over 'standard' HD







.


----------



## optivity




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13* /forum/post/17942985
> 
> 
> I have a fullHD1080Ptv and a HDsatelliet-receiver both have a good
> 
> reputation, i also owned a HDcable-receiver for a year.
> 
> 
> I can see day in day out how strange cable/satHD looks compared to bluray.
> 
> I do not believe this can be fixed,you do.



The only cable/satellite/ota transport mechanism that has the possibility to rival Blu-ray is FiOS.


However, even with FTTP once you're past the ONT your displays are subject to the same issues of coax cable signal loss (attenuation) as with cable TV.


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13* /forum/post/17942985
> 
> 
> I have a fullHD1080Ptv and a HDsatelliet-receiver both have a good
> 
> reputation, i also owned a HDcable-receiver for a year.
> 
> 
> I can see day in day out how strange cable/satHD looks compared to bluray.
> 
> I do not believe this can be fixed,you do.



Your previous post was too general and broadcast materials can rival BD but it is all depends on the cost and available bandwidth..


Also, in the states, MPEG 2 is the still the primary broadcast format (if I'm not mistaken), which needs to change.



Anyway, for full-frame SS3D, they would need to provide a new STBs and increase the bandwidth (compared to 2D). Even though it's possible to improve efficiency via the use of H264, it may not be possible to fully support 1080/120 or even 720/120 due to excessive bandwidth cost.



However, it may be possible that they may implement 1080p/48 (24p per eye) to a select few pre-pay films. For the rest, they may implement the cheap horizontal interlaced SS3D (1080i.)


----------



## 8mile13

I'm dutch,i live in europe,i watch english/german/dutch/austrian HD on satellite.

HDon satellite looks as if its on medication.

HD on cable looks even worse.


----------



## optivity

Is FiOS available in Europe?


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13* /forum/post/17943702
> 
> 
> I'm dutch,i live in europe,i watch english/german/dutch/austrian HD on satellite.
> 
> HDon satellite looks as if its on medication.
> 
> HD on cable looks even worse.



There is an alternative to broadcast (On-demand services).


Once we have enough bandwidth, it maybe possible to stream programs and movies in BD quality 3D.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *optivity* /forum/post/17943787
> 
> 
> Is FiOS available in Europe?



I don't know wat that is.



HDtv in Europe is going very slow and often it is not nativeHD.

These providers don't care about PQ,they only want to make money and

don't want to lose money,

they only make a move(add another HD channel)when the competition

makes a move this slows everything down,people are complaining.


In the midst of this they want to introduce 3D.


----------



## walford

8mile..,

AFAIK DVB-S in Europe is in SD Pal format and only the new DVB-S2 broadcasts are in HD format and currently in test but not yet implemented in permently in any countries.

Are you sure your TV/Tuner card is receiving DVB-S2 content and if it is it in 720p/50 or 1080i/50?


----------



## AJSJones

Dish Network streams BluRay (1080p24) to their DVRs and by all accounts the picture is indistinguishable from the BD disc.


Bandwidth crushing is not limited to HD







The Fox soccer channel on Dish network is barely as good as internet video with a decent bitrate. DirectTV and Dish keep sending up satellites so bandwidth is there, it just depends on how they assign it. We'd all like fewer channels and better quality, but unless we ALL agree on the ones to dump they'll keep supplying the demands for things like underwater golf and mountain fishing etc


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *walford* /forum/post/17944401
> 
> 
> 8mile..,
> 
> AFAIK DVB-S in Europe is in SD Pal format and only the new DVB-S2 broadcasts are in HD format and currently in test but not yet implemented in permently in any countries.
> 
> Are you sure your TV/Tuner card is receiving DVB-S2 content and if it is it in 720p/50 or 1080i/50?



For shure,HDsat-channels are DVB-S2,and when i watch HD i watch it

720P or 1080I.

SD on my HDsat-receiver looks excellent,i use a auto57P function when

i watch SD.

GermanHD is the best quality(public-tv ARD,ZDF),soon they will start broadcasting maybe it will change the way i feel about satHD.


----------



## walford

8Mile,


Are the programs you are watching on HD true HD programs "filmed" with 720p or 1080i content or are they upscaled SD programs?


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/17943329
> 
> 
> Your previous post was too general and broadcast materials can rival BD but it is all depends on the cost and available bandwidth..
> 
> 
> Also, in the states, MPEG 2 is the still the primary broadcast format (if I'm not mistaken), which needs to change.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, for full-frame SS3D, they would need to provide a new STBs and increase the bandwidth (compared to 2D). Even though it's possible to improve efficiency via the use of H264, it may not be possible to fully support 1080/120 or even 720/120 due to excessive bandwidth cost.
> 
> 
> 
> However, it may be possible that they may implement 1080p/48 (24p per eye) to a select few pre-pay films. For the rest, they may implement the cheap horizontal interlaced SS3D (1080i.)



Dish and Direct TV have both been making major strides to HD in mpeg4, almost to the point where mpeg2 is gone, and DirectTV is using DVB-S2 for its newer satellites.

We have Dish and the PQ on most HD is pretty good - variable signs of limitations on bandwidth are visible as blocking in some high-detail rapid-motion scenes but in most cases is up there with the OTA we used to get before we moved (I mean the single channel OTA, not the multiplex [email protected])


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13* /forum/post/17944349
> 
> 
> HDtv in Europe is going very slow and often it is not nativeHD.
> 
> .



That happened here to start with! There was a lot of SD stuff, widescreen up converted non-HD, poor telecine transfers from film, good transfers from film, and good "live, digital all the way, never filmed" HD that many thought was the best. Then the OTA stuff got mangled as some local stations added weather cam channels and traffic cam channels into their 19 Mb/s streams and the main HD channel really suffered. and on and on.... Even our local public TV channel didn't use its bandwidth for optimal picture quality all the time...


----------



## GregLee

While I agree with several who have made the point that the bandwidth required for 3D is nowhere near double that required for 2D (because the left and right-eye pictures are so similar), still, we are looking at an increased bandwidth requirement for 3D. I think this helps explain DirecTV's enthusiasm for 3D. If cable or telephone want to increase the bandwidth they can deliver to TV sets in homes, they have to string more fiber to millions of homes. In my area, while both telephone and cable use fiber in their networks, neither has fiber all the way into individual homes. Stringing new fiber to millions of homes would be a considerable capital investment.


What does this have to do with DirecTV and 3D? DirecTV has the means in place already to deliver lots of bandwidth to subscribers' satellite receivers -- the ku band and two ka bands. Last year, they received permission from the FCC to use their latest satellite, which just went up, to test yet another band of frequencies (which might or might not be used for consumer TV -- I don't know). I think DirecTV is betting on a high bandwidth future for consumer TV.


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AJSJones* /forum/post/17944983
> 
> 
> Dish and Direct TV have both been making major strides to HD in mpeg4, almost to the point where mpeg2 is gone, and DirectTV is using DVB-S2 for its newer satellites.
> 
> We have Dish and the PQ on most HD is pretty good - variable signs of limitations on bandwidth are visible as blocking in some high-detail rapid-motion scenes but in most cases is up there with the OTA we used to get before we moved (I mean the single channel OTA, not the multiplex [email protected])



Excellent, you guys aren't that behind ^-^


I just had a thought that may interest some here


De-noise and de-block filters can be applied prior to encoding or after decoding the signal. It will help to reduce/eliminate pixelation and noise with minimal negative-impact to the over-all image quality.


It is currently utilized? Are you able to configure it on the STB?



Here's a little sample done via * Handbrake *

*Original*












*Filtered*











*

Original Source*

http://cid-9c09d09ec80b78d1.skydrive...File%20Hosting


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee* /forum/post/17945360
> 
> 
> While I agree with several who have made the point that the bandwidth required for 3D is nowhere near double that required for 2D (because the left and right-eye pictures are so similar), still, we are looking at an increased bandwidth requirement for 3D.



There no need for bandwidth increase if the 3D is based on horizontal interlacing (540 lines per eye).


If MVC to be utilized, then the bandwidth has to be doubled (e.g. 1080p x 2)


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/17945508
> 
> 
> Excellent, you guys aren't that behind ^-^
> 
> 
> I just had a thought that may interest some here
> 
> 
> De-noise and de-block filters can be applied prior to encoding or after decoding the signal. It will help to reduce/eliminate pixelation and noise with minimal negative-impact to the over-all image quality.
> 
> 
> It is currently utilized? Are you able to configure it on the STB?
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a little sample



Well, having been watching OTA HDTV since 1999, I wonder who's catching up







The latecomers always get to choose the newer technologies










Eeuuuuggghhh! The original looks like low bandwidth internet transmitted overcompressed HD - I've never seen _anything_ that bad, even from satellite. The filtered one is silky soft and better on the eyes, but , well, soft.


----------



## Nielo TM

It wasn't a capture of OVA transmission. I was just using it as a sample. But it is not too far off from the actual broadcast ^-^


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/17945531
> 
> 
> There no need for bandwidth increase if the 3D is based on horizontal interlacing (540 lines per eye).



3D requires more bandwidth, other things being equal. If you reduce the resolution of the picture, of course that can give the extra bandwidth needed, so overall the signal requires no additional bandwidth. It may be that DirecTV's new 3D channel in June will do just this.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/17945508
> 
> 
> It is currently utilized? Are you able to configure it on the STB?



That is interesting. So far as I know it is not currently utilized. I cannot configure it on my STB.


----------



## Nielo TM

The advantage of vertical/horizontal interlacing, grid-mapping etc... is to maintain the same level of bandwidth by dropping the vertical/horizontal (or both) by half.


So 3D doesn't automatically mean increase in bandwidth unless they intent to provide full res per eye, which may not happen via satellite/cable. However, there is a very high change the on-demand sector services will adopt it.


----------



## 8mile13

There are a few trueHDinfo channels.


The HD-PQ on cable /sat is much better than SD but i don't like watching it,

i do like watching bluray.

And SD is good enough for me,i only want a 'perfect picture' when i watch

a movie.


In no european country they will tell you if the HD they show you is Native HD.


----------



## Nielo TM

the new Samsung models can detect the content resolution regardless of the source resolution. So there may be a way to find-out.



But I don't know its detection accuracy.


----------



## Nielo TM

Forgot to add: The contents given to the broadcast companies may not have the same level of quality as BD.


This has been the case with SD, which is still true today.


----------



## 8mile13

Nice stuff,Nielo.


SD is good enough for me,i mean SD on my Topfield7710HDsat-receiver,not SD

on a SDsat-receiver.


----------



## Nielo TM

Current autostereoscopic displays have limited viewing angles and can only provide half the total resolution per eye.



If 3D is successful, the next move would be to implement the (display) directly into the glasses, which would enable people to experience true cinema at home.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1224583


----------



## 8mile13

The Cinema experience is authentic in a movie theatre ,at home,home cinema,cinema is

a IMITATION of the movie theatre experience.


I do not like to watch movies in a dark place,there should be at least dimmed light.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13* /forum/post/18088420
> 
> 
> The Cinema experience is authentic in a movie theatre ,at home,home cinema,cinema is
> 
> a IMITATION of the movie theatre experience.
> 
> 
> I do not like to watch movies in a dark place,there should be at least dimmed light.



Samsung had a group of TVs stacked at CES all showing 3D content. They looked very bright and clear and the 3D effect was very good----and the ambient light there was brighter than the light in my family room.


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13* /forum/post/18088420
> 
> 
> The Cinema experience is authentic in a movie theatre ,at home,home cinema,cinema is
> 
> a IMITATION of the movie theatre experience.
> 
> 
> I do not like to watch movies in a dark place,there should be at least dimmed light.




whatever floats your boat


----------



## walford




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/17945750
> 
> 
> Forgot to add: The contents given to the broadcast companies may not have the same level of quality as BD.
> 
> .



According to the following link the resolution of the 3D content from the cable and satellite broadcasters will be half of that from Blu-Ray disks themselves.. Since the broadcasters will braodcast 960x1080 for each eye as compared to 1920x1080 for each eye from the disk to the full 3D TVs. This is solution enables the broadcasters to not have to broadcast 3D at a hgher bandwidth and enable their tuner STBs to receive and process 3D with a downloadable firmware upgrade.

http://hd.engadget.com/2010/01/12/hd...de-by-side-3d/


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18088605
> 
> 
> Samsung had a group of TVs stacked at CES all showing 3D content. They looked very bright and clear and the 3D effect was very good----and the ambient light there was brighter than the light in my family room.



BIAS LIGHTING:cinemaquestinc.com


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/18088633
> 
> 
> whatever floats your boat



I love watching tv with some dimmed light ,it makes my boat float.


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *walford* /forum/post/18088765
> 
> 
> According to the following link the resolution of the 3D content from the cable and satellite broadcasters will be half of that from Blu-Ray disks themselves.. Since the broadcasters will braodcast 960x1080 for each eye as compared to 1920x1080 for each eye from the disk to the full 3D TVs. This is solution enables the broadcasters to not have to broadcast 3D at a hgher bandwidth and enable their tuner STBs to receive and process 3D with a downloadable firmware upgrade.
> 
> http://hd.engadget.com/2010/01/12/hd...de-by-side-3d/



There are number of ways to broadcast 3D such as side by side (which is similar to SD Widescreen), checkboard and interlacing.


All thee formats sacrifice quality by maintaining bandwidth. In other words, it doesn't cost extra to transmit 3D.



I wonder which is better, Side by Side or Interlacing.


----------



## BuddTX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *magillagorilla* /forum/post/17862947
> 
> 
> Having sat through Avatar twice over the holidays, the 3d effect appears to be a cute novelty for about ten minutes. After the point, your brain becomes accustomed to it and you don't really notice anymore. Additionally, wearing the glasses dims the image significantly and (at least for me) created a distracting, hazy effect that frequently took me out of the experience.



THANK YOU FOR SAYING THIS!!! This was my experience also! Dull and fuzzy,but great 3D effects.


Can't wait to see it on BluRay 2D!


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BuddTX* /forum/post/18092096
> 
> 
> THANK YOU FOR SAYING THIS!!! This was my experience also! Dull and fuzzy,but great 3D effects.
> 
> 
> Can't wait to see it on BluRay 2D!



Did you see it IMAX or real-3D?


I say this because the three real3D versions that i saw (2 different theaters) were *razor sharp*... possibly the sharpest most detailed movie I've ever seen projected.


----------



## pmreedjr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BuddTX* /forum/post/18092096
> 
> 
> THANK YOU FOR SAYING THIS!!! This was my experience also! Dull and fuzzy,but great 3D effects.
> 
> 
> Can't wait to see it on BluRay 2D!



As the previous poster, DaViD Boulet said, I too thought the image on the Imax screen was crisp, clear, and detailed. After a few minutes, I began to forget I was watching 3D; which is just the way it should be! When some image jerked me out of that and reminded me I was watching 3D, I again marvelled at the beauty of the images I was seeing. No 2D for me; this is a must-buy 3D BD to go with the complete 3D theater I'll be assembling later this year, or early next year at the latest.

I can say it:::I'm a believer!


----------



## Matt L




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pmreedjr* /forum/post/18094809
> 
> 
> As the previous poster, DaViD Boulet said, I too thought the image on the Imax screen was crisp, clear, and detailed. After a few minutes, I began to forget I was watching 3D; which is just the way it should be! When some image jerked me out of that and reminded me I was watching 3D, I again marvelled at the beauty of the images I was seeing. No 2D for me; this is a must-buy 3D BD to go with the complete 3D theater I'll be assembling later this year, or early next year at the latest.
> 
> I can say it:::I'm a believer!



You're a "believer" after seeing 1 high budget movie? You you honestly think network shows and such will have the same quality? Yes, it was stunning. But the years of production that went into it produced the result we marveled at on the screen, no sitcom, or hour long drama on a network will EVER have that luxury or budget. I'd expect to see movies with smaller budgets doing 3D with less stellar results.


It's your money and you can spend it as you like. I've been around long enough to know that the odds are good that 3D is more hype than anything.


----------



## pmreedjr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Matt L* /forum/post/18098984
> 
> 
> You're a "believer" after seeing 1 high budget movie? You you honestly think network shows and such will have the same quality? Yes, it was stunning. But the years of production that went into it produced the result we marveled at on the screen, no sitcom, or hour long drama on a network will EVER have that luxury or budget. I'd expect to see movies with smaller budgets doing 3D with less stellar results.
> 
> 
> It's your money and you can spend it as you like. I've been around long enough to know that the odds are good that 3D is more hype than anything.



It turns out that I won't incur any significant additional expense in order to bring 3D capability into my home. I need a new HDTV, as my 8 year old Pioneer 65" RPTV is on it's last legs; why not buy a new display that's 3D capable? My BD player is a Gold Box special Sylvania that will work perfectly with my bedroom setup, so I'll have an opening for a BD player for the new TV; why not buy one that's 3D capable? And, if it comes to that, I bought into HDDVD as the better HD option and it's dead. I've lost before.

I'm 64, retired, and pretty well off; I could throw away the money I'll spend on this equipment and my lifestyle wouldn't change. Whether or not my new 3D capable equipment ever shows a lot of 3D programming is almost irrelevant! If it does, as I think it will, I can watch it, If it doesn't, I'll have a very good, very large 2D HDTV system. I'm leaning towards the upcoming 72" Visio LCD, though that's not set in stone. I'm not a gamer, but the PS3 may be an option for the BD player, though I really want to wait to see how the new flock of players pan out. The Sony's lack of HDMI 1.4 ports concerns me.

I guess that it's just serendipity that my requirement to replace my existing equipment comes along just as 3D for the home becomes viable. I expect that, by this time next year, it'll all be in place; and I can hardly wait!


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Matt L* /forum/post/18098984
> 
> 
> You're a "believer" after seeing 1 high budget movie? You you honestly think network shows and such will have the same quality? Yes, it was stunning. But the years of production that went into it produced the result we marveled at on the screen, no sitcom, or hour long drama on a network will EVER have that luxury or budget. I'd expect to see movies with smaller budgets doing 3D with less stellar results.
> 
> 
> It's your money and you can spend it as you like. I've been around long enough to know that the odds are good that 3D is more hype than anything.



Coraline was native 3D (stereo cameras), no CGI, and was also an incredible impressive 3D spectacle... one where the 3D depth really added to the story and enhanced the artistry and "other worldliness" of the film. For me, Coraline was the 3D film that "made me a believer" well before AVATAR. I think most folks haven't even seen Coraline in 3D so there's very little discussion about it... obviously AVATAR is the film that's making waves due to popularity and its sheer epic proportions (deservedly so).


It doesn't take a high budget to get 3D right. Just common sense behind the camera.


----------



## jbug

I saw Coraline in a 4K Digital Theater and agree 100%. I saw other 3D movies last year as well and it wasn't Avatar that won me over, it was the other 3D movies that came before it.


Up

A Christmas Carol

Final Destination 3D

Coraline

Battle For Terra

Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs

Monsters Vs. Aliens

G-Force


----------



## fire407

It seems that some people think that because of Avatars' success the consumer electronics manufacterers got together and said we have to come out with 3D TVs now. Obviously 3D TV has been in the works since way before Avatar. Even if Avatar had bombed at the box office, 3D TVs and Blu-ray players would still be coming out this year. I do think Avatars' success will have a positive influence on the sales of 3D Blu-ray players and TVs, but there are lot's of other movies as well and I'm sure a whole lot more to come in the future. I'll be buying a 3D capable TV this year in order to watch movies and sports in 3D. It's funny when many of the naysayers imply that you are wasting your money on 3D TVs, when the 3D capable TVs will actually be the top of the line 2D TVs as well.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18103250
> 
> 
> It seems that some people think that because of Avatars' success the consumer electronics manufacterers got together and said we have to come out with 3D TVs now. Obviously 3D TV has been in the works since way before Avatar. Even if Avatar had bombed at the box office, 3D TVs and Blu-ray players would still be coming out this year. I do think Avatars' success will have a positive influence on the sales of 3D Blu-ray players and TVs, but there are lot's of other movies as well and I'm sure a whole lot more to come in the future. I'll be buying a 3D capable TV this year in order to watch movies and sports in 3D. It's funny when many of the naysayers imply that you are wasting your money on 3D TVs, when the 3D capable TVs will actually be the top of the line 2D TVs as well.



The push for 3D in 2010 was a (unusually) coordinated effort between CE manufacturers, software content providers, television delivery services, studios and directors. The timing of AVATAR and the big push for 3D with hardware and electronic this year was not coincidence: it was planned. Perhaps 3D television still would be coming out in 2010 without AVATAR, but the timing in this case was no accident. The BDA are also leveraging titles like this to help get 3D blu-ray on the radar of consumers who otherwise might not have been aware or cared about 3D (or at least the blu-ray component). The concept of using a depth-axis for major feature films beyond "disney cartoons" if you will, was a legitimizing factor for may consumers to begin to see 3D in a new light. I think that AVATAR succeeded in accomplishing that.


BTW, remember how there has been no announcement of the release date for AVATAR on blu-ray in 3D? The (very possible) rumor is that Cameron was holding out on moving forward to put pressure on the BDA to accept Sony's/Panasonic's proposal for 66 GB discs to facilitate compression and maximize quality. If so, he just may succeed, and even 2D BD will be better for the enhanced storage space (especially 33GB single-layer replication).


If you suddenly see AVATAR 3D blu-ray get a street date or a promised window for release *after* the BDA ratifies the 66GB disc protocol, that will basically confirm the suspicion.


----------



## fire407

I understand the coordinated effort, but there was no guarantee that Avatar was even going break even. I think that the new 3D tech was going to be implemented this year anyway. Panasonic and Sony were showing 3D at the NAB back in April, with Panasonic showing a prototype 3D Blu-ray player. The Panasonic 3D Blu-ray standard was adopted just three weeks before CES. I would also like to see 66GB disks


----------



## UCFKevin

I was planning on getting a new TV this summer anyway, and since these damn 3D TVs are coming out around then, I figure I'll just get the Sony HX900 or 800, which is just 3D capable, not with it built in. If reviews are good of the 3D stuff, sure, I'll get it, particularly for the games on the PS3. That aspect of it intrigues me moreso than movies, to be honest, but nevertheless, I'd still check out a 3D movie to see how it is. Why not? If it's good, good. If it ain't, well, at least the TV itself will be of wonderful quality.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *UCFKevin* /forum/post/18109758
> 
> 
> I was planning on getting a new TV this summer anyway, and since these damn 3D TVs are coming out around then, I figure I'll just get the Sony HX900 or 800, which is just 3D capable, not with it built in. If reviews are good of the 3D stuff, sure, I'll get it, particularly for the games on the PS3. That aspect of it intrigues me moreso than movies, to be honest, but nevertheless, I'd still check out a 3D movie to see how it is. Why not? If it's good, good. If it ain't, well, at least the TV itself will be of wonderful quality.



Exactly!


----------



## walford

The 5 year old DX900 will not be able to play the new 3D Blu-ray disks that will be coming out this spring or any other 3D format that I am aware of so I don't know what the specs you have read that say it is 3D capable mean.

http://www.cnet.com.au/sony-rdr-hx90...3DIE-SearchBox


----------



## UCFKevin

Which is why I wouldn't get it.


----------



## PrimeTime

Movies and broadcast 3-D would be nice. The reality is that gaming on LCDs will drag everything else into 3-D. And will probably take another bite out of plasma sales.


Too bad we don't have 3-D broadcasts for the Olympics. The luge and bobsled could be fantastic in 3-D. Skating and hockey wouldn't be bad either.


Skiing, though, with those long telephoto-flattening lenses, might disappoint.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> The reality is that gaming on LCDs will drag everything else into 3-D. And will probably take another bite out of plasma sales.



3-D isn't limited to LCD. Plasma can go 3D as well.


----------



## PrimeTime

Most gamers prefer LCDs that don't have to be babied over IR concerns. If they are the main drivers behind early 3D, that will indeed steer some more new sales away from plasma.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PrimeTime* /forum/post/18114383
> 
> 
> Most gamers prefer LCDs that don't have to be babied over IR concerns. If they are the main drivers behind early 3D, that will indeed steer some more new sales away from plasma.



Ahh, I see what you mean now (that gamers prefer LCD for reasons like no burn-in etc.)


----------



## walford




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *UCFKevin* /forum/post/18111749
> 
> 
> Which is why I wouldn't get it.



My mistake I looked up the DX900 instead of the HX900.

However, I do not understand what you mean by "3D built in". I am not aware of any 3D functions not in the HX900 unlesss you are referring to support some of the other 3D content that is not supported by the Blu-Ray 3D spec.


----------



## mbrennem

Sony HX800 and HX900 are 3D capable but will not include the 3D glasses or transmitter in order to keep the price down. The glasses and transmitter will be available separately. The LX900 series will be more expensive but will include the transmitter and glasses.

http://www.i4u.com/article29809.html


----------



## DaViD Boulet

one of the best articles on 3D I've read yet:

http://www.avrev.com/home-theater-fe...g-3d-back.html


----------



## wojtek

I just got back from Akihabara and the Sony Bldg in Tokyo.


(I am typing this from my hotel).


3D flat panels are everywhere. To me, all the clips and movies in 3D looked pretty much fake, did not like them one bit. The images reminded me of those old 3D postcards based on lenticular screens, where you clearly see the first plane, and then a second plane behind it. The 3D effects in films had depth alright, but somehow looked fake.


But 3D gaming - WOW.


I think that's where the future of 3D flat panels might be. Too bad I am not a gamer.


PS - one more thing. You had to look straight at the screen to get the 3D effect. Try to turn your head even a little to either side and the image becomes a mess.


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wojtek* /forum/post/18125491
> 
> 
> PS - one more thing. You had to look straight at the screen to get the 3D effect. Try to turn your head even a little to either side and the image becomes a mess.



That doesn't seem right. Were they using the active shutter glasses? Even with the RealD glasses I could move my head around and not lose the effect.


----------



## Shtopor

Finally, Sonystyle managed to get their 3D demo working. Last night I picked my wife and we both went to see it.

Content: Clips of nature (bear in aquariom, wolf ..), soccer , WipeouHD (game), Little Big Planet gameplay video and Killzone2 promo trailer are played in loop.

TV is a 52" Sony (model is unknown).

Distance (I tryed anywahere from 8 feet right down to about 4 feet)


I am a bit biased to have a 3D tv asap, and my better part was undecided before viewing that tv. We both watched Avatar I loved it (its my kind of movie more so it was right made 3D) she liked it ( she is the kind who would rather watch Anna Karenina, Ninotchka on black and white set then lately created exclusively for teenagers (in their early teens). We are both in our yearly 40s. We never had any troubles with viewing 3D movies for the past 2 years in fact we rather enjoy 3D moviegoing experiences.

Now back to Sony.

NEGATIVE part:

1.First thing i noticed was washed out colors (that might be cureable as I believe store's stuff placed tv at a quite bright part of the shop).

2.Then we noticed like a net of pixels(noise?) in front of 3D picture, its like your brain creates a 3D of what is going on deep inside which is created with bright pixels, but that noise of pixels (barely visible but still annoying) is where screen is (I believe those are pixels that brain discards from 3D and they are just ignored 3D wise so consiquently its flat ).

3. Flicker, ohh that flicker, my eyes got tired within a few minutes and I know when it happens it can only be a low refresh rate. I believe 60hz for each eye is not what I want to see on 3D.

4. All fast moving ( especially soccer and Killzone 2 (surprisingly?)) had HUGE problem for me. STROBING! Images were moving not fluidly especially those that are closer soccer players shots where just horrible.


POSITIVE: Wipeout HD was fluid and looked absolutely gorgeous (wife noted that too). I believe that video was not 24 but most likely 60 fps

(strobing was gone, not even a trace of it in that clip)


I believe flicker and noise(which turnes into 2d while 3D is behind it) are more or less cureable (I believe plasma technology has a better shot at that), but that strobing in 3D is just so horrible, your eyes will get tired of it . I would love to see Avatar clip as that would made possible for me to compare theater and TV experience. In theater I didn't see much of a strobing.

I believe Panasonic 3D demo has Avatar clip.

I want to see Panasonic 3D before I make my conclusions but from what I see it is a mixture where both hardware and content should be done right for this thing to take off. Even if Panasonic will make it right, poorly done 3d

on perfect 3D TV will be a spoiler. I believe Sony and Panasonic should create some sort of certification for content or all their investment in 3D

hardware will be ruined by poorly made content. Once people see

it, they will not distiguish who is right and who is wrong, they will just ignore 3d altogether.


P.S.My wife was willing to embrace it (she even went that far that agreed to go and see it, lol, so I guess she was serious). To her, most unpleasant part were (guess what? lol), glasses!!! They were heavy and left marks on her nose (I presumed it was due to the fact that glasses were sitting on a rope and if you wanted to move then it applied additional force to unwind a rope).


----------



## walford

Since the 2010 Sony 3D capable HDTVs are all 240 Hz models they should be display the right eye and the left contend each in 120Hz fps mode. It appears that the demos at the stores are not using not yet released Blu-Ray 3d players which output 1080p/48 fps content which AFAIK would be required to display the content for each eye at 120fps on a 240Hz LCD 3D capable TV.


----------



## jbug

I saw the clip at the Sonystyle store with the soccer game, video games, nature etc. Today I went back as I was told that there was another clip in rotation. It was long clips of Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs interrupted by a break with the Sony logo against a black background with stars. I saw no distortion at all nor washed out colors. The only negative I saw was the lights in the store reflecting off the screen. I didn't notice any negatives on the other clip either. The images were bright, crisp and colorful (especially the video games).


----------



## Shtopor

Went another time to check if SOny was so dumb to show off their 3D demos

which seemed like a half baked.

No Noise (or maybe glaring would be right term) and didn't feel flicker at all,

which is bloody good as that would be a showstopper for me.

I saw more demos: Stardust and Pacific Rift (both are games) were just absolutely breathtaking, no artifacts or at least none that bothered me.

Wheel of Fortune was pretty good which I attribute to the fact that there are no fast moving scenes. Overall a better experience. BTW I think Sony needs to redesign their glasses, I feel they are not comfortable.

Again, games are first to gain from 3D as powerfull PC graphic cards are capable of producing more fps I would say 720p/60fps (per eye) is not bad for time being, I doubt if HDMI 1.4 is capable to stream 1080p/60fps(per eye) (I believe at this point its capable 1080/30).

I feel this 24p movie should be droped. I mean common 24p came out when movies were shot mostly from static cameras and there were no need to go

any higher. 3D will definitely undust this subject.


----------



## wojtek




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dallows* /forum/post/18125778
> 
> 
> That doesn't seem right. Were they using the active shutter glasses? Even with the RealD glasses I could move my head around and not lose the effect.



Dunno. The hostesses at the Sony Bldg in Tokyo did not speak English.


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/18114457
> 
> 
> Ahh, I see what you mean now (that gamers prefer LCD for reasons like no burn-in etc.)



The sad truth is, PDP, DLP, LCoS etc. are all superior to LCD in terms of 3D performance


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *UCFKevin* /forum/post/18109758
> 
> 
> I was planning on getting a new TV this summer anyway, and since these damn 3D TVs are coming out around then, I figure I'll just get the Sony HX900 or 800, which is just 3D capable, not with it built in. If reviews are good of the 3D stuff, sure, I'll get it, particularly for the games on the PS3. That aspect of it intrigues me moreso than movies, to be honest, but nevertheless, I'd still check out a 3D movie to see how it is. Why not? If it's good, good. If it ain't, well, at least the TV itself will be of wonderful quality.



3D games will be limited to handful of first party titles and arcades. No one will be playing graphically intensive games in 3D for the moment (unless they own a powerful PC).




Here's quote from AVF I wrote ealier on the subject of PS3 and 3D gaming



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/11483395
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bad robot* /forum/post/11483325
> 
> 
> Sorry but this is incorrect...
> 
> 
> Sony have not disclosed how their 3D will work regards PS3 games but it will not have a massive if any effect on the games framerate. Already GT5 Prologue, Wipeout HD and Motorstorm 2 have been demonstrated.
> 
> 
> Killzone has also be shown at previous trade shows in 3D but only via video form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sony will be using combination of 3D methods to maintain maximum compatibility, which include Side by Side, Top and Bottom, H/V Interlacing, Sequential and Checkboard. The X360 supports all accept sequential (limited by HDMI v1.2).
> 
> 
> Sequential is superior as it can be scaled and offers complete frame per eye, but all five require additional resources compared to 2D (which excludes video).
> 
> 
> Side by Side, Top and Bottom, H/V Interlacing and Checkboard utilize *single frame* to store left and right information. So when a game is rendered using Side by Side, 1920 x 1080 frame is split in half (960 x 1080 for the left and 960 x 1080 for the right eye) and the display converts it to sequential 1920 x 1080 60/120p by extracting left and right information and restoring its original 1.78 aspect ratio (akin to wide-screen SD contents).
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the image cannot be scaled once composed, as result games must natively support 1080p (LCD and PDP) and 720/1080p (3D DLP) by default.
> 
> 
> 
> The PS3 is not a magical powerhouse and it internal architecture provides limited flexibility. In order to increase the pixel rate, the GPU has to be freed by reallocating number of processing tasks to the Cell, which isn't easy and even-though the Cell is quite cable of rendering 3D, it is not a replacement for the RSX.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, the majority of games such as Uncharted and Kill Zone are rendered in 720p30, which means *27,648,000* pixels (1280 x 720 x 30) are pushed-out every second on average. Kill Zone already has issues with frame rate (so do most games on the PS3). Asking the PS3 to push *double the frame rate* for sequential (720p) is not possible (without reducing visuals/resolution). To make matters worse, * true HV scaling is not possible on the PS3 *. So rendering a game in sequential 540p (960 x 540) could be a problem, unless developers utilize the Cell for scaling, which will impact performance.
> 
> 
> Even if developers were to utilize Side by Side, Checkboard, Interlacing etc. The pixel output remains stupendously high (*62,208,000* PPS / 1080p30).
> 
> 
> 
> So yes, the majority of games will be simple arcade and racing games. If one wishes to maintain 2D level visuals, resolution must be sacrificed (possibility to 640 x 720 x 30p x 2 = *27,648,000*). Since the image is horizontally compressed, developers can utilize the horizontal hardware scaler to scale 640 to 1280 without any errors.
> 
> 
> 
> PS: The demos were re-designed to include 3D. So there's no guarantee the pixel yield is identical to the 2D versions.
Click to expand...


http://www.avforums.com/forums/telev...-i-wait-2.html


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dallows* /forum/post/18125778
> 
> 
> That doesn't seem right. Were they using the active shutter glasses? Even with the RealD glasses I could move my head around and not lose the effect.



It's a problem with LCD displays. They have other issues as well (such as high pixel latency).


So without a doubt, Panasonic will have the best 3D mode on the market. Having said that, I am looking forward to Samsung's 3D PDPs.


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *walford* /forum/post/18131318
> 
> 
> Since the 2010 Sony 3D capable HDTVs are all 240 Hz models they should be display the right eye and the left contend each in 120Hz fps mode. It appears that the demos at the stores are not using not yet released Blu-Ray 3d players which output 1080p/48 fps content which AFAIK would be required to display the content for each eye at 120fps on a 240Hz LCD 3D capable TV.



I wasn't aware 3D BD players can output 48p


Is that universal or limited to certain models?


----------



## walford

It is outputting two separate 1080p/24 videos one for each eye as described in the following link:

http://hd.engadget.com/2010/01/12/hd...de-by-side-3d/


----------



## PrimeTime




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/18132499
> 
> 
> The sad truth is, PDP, DLP, LCoS etc. are all superior to LCD in terms of 3D performance



Displays specifically engineered for recently-adopted 3-D standards are quite scarce right now. So the real truth has yet to be fully revealed.


All of those techs have issues in 2-D, and how those weaknesses ultimately affect their 3-D performance is too soon to tell. We will have to wait and see.


Who's to say that the extended latency of LCDs won't actually be a benefit with multiplexed left/right processing, or that LCDs may be able to meet end-user (through shutterglasses) brightness standards that plasmas cannot?


----------



## DaViD Boulet

Actually, any latency would be a huge problem as it would create cross-talk and ghosting with 3D images.


That means that 3D LCD TVs will need to overcome the latency issues in order to be good 3D sets... which means they'll make great 2D sets as well as the latency issues being improved will improve image quality for 2D viewing.


----------



## bill4903485

Except that plasma has phosphor lag. Some pretty bad cases of it on Youtube.

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


You want zero lag go with CRT.


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bill4903485* /forum/post/18142609
> 
> 
> Except that plasma has phosphor lag. Some pretty bad cases of it on Youtube.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLuOa...eature=related
> 
> 
> You want zero lag go with CRT.



I never seen any phosphor trails, ever. And I game on my plasma.


----------



## bill4903485

I was just pointing out that both LCD and plasma contain degrees of lag. So they will both have issues with 3D implementation. Discerning the lag will be up to the sensitivity of the individual eyes, although 3D will definitely make the effect more apparent.


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bill4903485* /forum/post/18142609
> 
> 
> Except that plasma has phosphor lag. Some pretty bad cases of it on Youtube.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLuOa...eature=related
> 
> 
> You want zero lag go with CRT.




Just got back form Panasonic Convenction 2010 and they have finally reduced the PL to negligible levels.


The G20 also had less PL compared to the 2009 models.


As usual, the floor was absent of Panasonic engineers , so it wasn't possible to ask the question that needed to be answered.


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PrimeTime* /forum/post/18139689
> 
> 
> Displays specifically engineered for recently-adopted 3-D standards are quite scarce right now. So the real truth has yet to be fully revealed.
> 
> 
> All of those techs have issues in 2-D, and how those weaknesses ultimately affect their 3-D performance is too soon to tell. We will have to wait and see.
> 
> 
> Who's to say that the extended latency of LCDs won't actually be a benefit with multiplexed left/right processing, or that LCDs may be able to meet end-user (through shutterglasses) brightness standards that plasmas cannot?



The Panasonic demo of the VT range was bloody awesome. However, certain pop-out texts had a faint ghost image but the models were engineering samples, so such issues may be addressed at later time.



Left and right, interlacing etc. have to be converted to sequential 3D for active shutter based displays and H/V interlacing for passive displays (in the case of DLP, check-board is also an option).


ATM, I'm not aware of any LCD that can change is state within 8ms (120Hz) and 4ms (240Hz) regardless of the gray-scale value.


Ironically, if anyone can, it'll be Panasonic as IPS has excellent motion thanks to fast black to white RT and grayscale RT thanks to over-drive.


For an example, if you need the panel to display 200 gray from black (0), all you have to do is switch to white (256) and down to 200.


----------



## hoodlum

Here is an interesting article on Indie 3D productions.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1474451/ 


Dashwood says he has since signed a deal with a Canadian director – he couldn’t specify who due to a confidentiality agreement – to shoot a 3-D feature film with a budget of only around $1-million, tiny by 3-D standards. Avatar reportedly cost roughly $230-million (U.S.) to shoot. It’s also a tiny fraction of the $170-million budget for Robert Zemeckis’s 2004 animated film The Polar Express, also released in 3-D. However, short IMAX documentaries and concert films are typically made for under $10-million, although some estimates pegged 2008’s U2 3D as having cost around $15-million.


“The perception is that you can’t do a [feature-length] 3-D movie for less than $10-million. With our technology … we’re proving otherwise,” Dashwood says, adding that he can shoot in 3-D for as little as 12 to 15 per cent added to the total budget.


The 3-D community still has that old "Creature From The Black Lagoon" gumption. Dashwood and other cinematographers often custom-make 3-D camera rigs for shoots, for example. *Dashwood is also selling 3-D editing software he’s developed for $389 (U.S.), far less than the cost of a professional editing suite. The software is a plug-in for Final Cut, the popular editing software that helped transform indie filmmaking by giving home computers the capabilities of a professional editing suite.* Dashwood’s plug-in allows users to adjust disparities between the two streams of footage that combine to create a 3-D effect. Film editors can now perform the complicated synchronizing of left-eye and right-eye images on a laptop.


As Munro Ferguson, an animation director heavily involved in 3-D animation at the National Film Board of Canada’s StereoLab project in Montreal, says, “What’s great for people interested in 3-D as an art form is that there are so many new tools becoming available. ... It’s becoming really accessible to independent filmmakers and artists from all kinds of different fields.”


----------



## dovercat

What about brightness.


With sequential shutter glasses half the time each eye is seeing black. That halves display brightness. Then you have a small loss due to the glasses. Lower maximum brightness also means lower contrast ratio. Lower average brightness means encoding the gamma differently to maintain the perception of image contrast and encoding the color differently, as color vibrancy is also effected by image brightness.


What is the blu-ray 3D encoding specs expected display brightness. If they have not stated one then how can films be mastered for 3D blu-ray.


This may not be a problem with bright cgi cartoons but for typical movies? The 2D commercial cinema spec is 12-22ftL with professional screening rooms being 16ftL which assuming film transmissivity of 87% equates to about 14ftL. Digital 2D commercial cinema spec is 11-17ftL with mastering done at 14ftL The 3D commercial cinema spec is only 4.5ftL. Mastering room ambient light levle is


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airion* /forum/post/17877061
> 
> 
> People only complain about the glasses because it's just not something they're used to doing. It's not that glasses are itchy or something. Heck, before I got contacts, I wore glasses ALL DAY, and it wasn't so bad.



Two pairs, one on top of the other?


----------



## pmreedjr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18168918
> 
> 
> Two pairs, one on top of the other?



That's how I watched Avatar in an Imax 3D presentation. My distance glasses under the polarized glasses. Worked fine. I'll have to do the same thing at home with shutter glasses for whatever set I buy. Perhaps they'll come up with a slot for a slide-in corrective lense. I don't fancy buying prescription shutter glasses as my prescription will change....and then what? I guess I could just get contacts, but they've never appealed to me.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> What is the blu-ray 3D encoding specs expected display brightness. If they have not stated one then how can films be mastered for 3D blu-ray.



The Blu-ray 3D spec is merely two 1080p images instead of one. There's no shift in grayscale or color balance as the 3D stereo signal is "method agnostic", and there's no single algorithm that would describe the anomolies introduced by all 3D display methods. Also, future development of 3D images could produce images that don't have visible brightness loss. For instance, why not just have the display itself get brighter when in 3D mode to compensate? You never want to build signal-modifications into a high-fidelity signal that may not ultimately be required.


Just like with audio: make your signal full quality and then let the user decide if he/she needs to change it in some way like altering EQ or dyanamic range etc. given the limitations of the listening room. But keep the source signal on the disc full-fidelity.


video should be treated the same way.


Otherwise, we'll end up like with those crappy DVD transfers of the Japanese animated classics that all had red/flesh-tone inbalances because supposedly the DVD producers were trying to compensate for the color-offset of plasma TVs, which I guess they assumed all had exactly the same color mis-calibration and naturally no one would ever watch the DVD movie on any other type of display.


----------



## dovercat

I have read of a 3D cinema demo where they showed 3D films at 6ftL reference white and 14ftL reference white instead of the usual 4.5ftL. They said that when 3D films mastered at 4.5ftL were remastered to be shown 3D at 6ftL they had to add a lot of color saturation, and even more for 14ftL. So if that is correct when the film is remastered for 3D blu-ray they need to know roughly what brightness the consumer display is going to be, to make it look right.


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pmreedjr* /forum/post/18171965
> 
> 
> That's how I watched Avatar in an Imax 3D presentation.



Me too. I can't say it was an experience I relished nor would I want to do it often. Sort of like wearing a lead weight on my nose!


----------



## irkuck

In any event guys, be now prepared your life companion will strongly demand to have 3DTV after reading this . On the other hand, plan to increase budget on fashion after getting your 3DTV set







.


----------



## thebland

3-D Non-Sense... you mean:



3-D makes NO SENSE.


No sense for home.


----------



## mastermaybe

^ I'm certain this assertion is based upon an extensive experience with the new 3D tech in a home environment?


Clearly, if perhaps only on a limited basis, 3D viewing has an audience- we've learned this through Avatar alone. For every one person who qualifies it as blah or "gimmicky", there seems to be at least 1-2 who feel the polar opposite.


Further, recognizing the above, the notion that implementing it (or a similar approach) on 60 and 70" (and larger) screens in the home would qualify as non-sense, doesn't follow any form of logic that I'm aware of.


I (and millions of others) will just wait to see how well the tech fares, before making baseless prognostications regarding its validity in our living rooms.


thanks though.


James


----------



## thebland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mastermaybe* /forum/post/18210112
> 
> 
> ^ I'm certain this assertion is based upon an extensive experience with the new 3D tech in a home environment?
> 
> 
> Clearly, if perhaps only on a limited basis, 3D viewing has an audience- we've learned this through Avatar alone. For every one person who qualifies it as blah or "gimmicky", there seems to be at least 1-2 who feel the polar opposite.
> 
> 
> Further, recognizing the above, the notion that implementing it (or a similar approach) on 60 and 70" (and larger) screens in the home would qualify as non-sense, doesn't follow any form of logic that I'm aware of.
> 
> 
> I (and millions of others) will just wait to see how well the tech fares, before making baseless prognostications regarding its validity in our living rooms.
> 
> 
> thanks though.
> 
> 
> James



It simply won't take off. It'll have the penetration / life span of HD DVD. It could survive as a Laser Disc like niche for front projection owners or LCD gamers.


It's a gimmick that can only find oxygen at a large screen venue. A small, typical 58" LCD will be underwhelming after folks have experienced 3-D at Imax. And the glasses... uggh.

_Nostradamus Home Theaterus_ has spoken!


----------



## pmreedjr

As I've stated before, I'll be buying in for sure. In a year or two, it'll be hard to buy a high-end display that's *not* 3D capable. If you don't like it; you don't have to use it.


----------



## davehancock




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pmreedjr* /forum/post/18210972
> 
> 
> As I've stated before, I'll be buying in for sure. In a year or two, it'll be hard to buy a high-end display that's *not* 3D capable. If you don't like it; you don't have to use it.



I agree with you. With the exception of the glasses, the costs to implement 3D in a display or a Blu-ray player is minimal. I see 3D capability as becoming pretty standard, with the glasses being extra-cost items.


----------



## Steve P.

Exactly. TVs will be 3-D capable, but no one is forcing you to use the feature. It will be there for those who want it, and others can ignore it.


BTW, you'll be able to get 3-D glasses with your perscription if you want. A good option for serious 3-D fans who happen to wear glasses.


The glasses won't be expensive for long, either. Shutter glasses for field sequential 3-D (basically the same thing) can be found for $29 for two sets easily, and they aren't even a mainstream product. In short order you'll be able to pick up extra glasses compatible with your new 3-D set for far less than you think. How many people are still paying $1000 for a Blu-ray player?


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thebland* /forum/post/18210641
> 
> 
> It simply won't take off. It'll have the penetration / life span of HD DVD. It could survive as a Laser Disc like niche for front projection owners or LCD gamers.
> 
> 
> It's a gimmick that can only find oxygen at a large screen venue. A small, typical 58" LCD will be underwhelming after folks have experienced 3-D at Imax. And the glasses... uggh.
> 
> _Nostradamus Home Theaterus_ has spoken!




How can you determine what size screen makes 3D viable for a particular consumer?


Many who have seen 3D on 50" sets seemed pretty happy with the results at CES.


Naturally I agree with you that the larger the screen the better... but as long as someone's enjoying what they're happy with, there's no problem.


Since 3D isn't a new format, but just a new *feature* added to a high-performance display, it won't die an HD-DVD or laserdisc death. A better analogy would be BD Live/profile 2.0 which is on most Blu-ray players today even if the consumer watching blu-ray Discs never even bothers to access web content from his/her blu-ray Discs.


On a 3D enabled set, a consumer at any time can choose to enjoy 3D content when it makes sense for them, or enjoy 2D when that makes sense. The 3D ready/featured HDTV works just the same. And adding 3D to an HDTV that can scan 120Hz or higher is pretty simple for a manufacturer who uses active shutter glasses... so chances are that over the next 2-3 years pretty much all HDTVs worth owning will offer 3D as a feature, whether or not the particular consumer buying that TV even plans to use it.


----------



## thebland

David,


Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed Avatar and was 'wowed' by the experience... I simply don't think it has the wheels to take off...


I hope I am wrong.


----------



## mastermaybe

^ Rest assured, you will be.


3D is, at the very least, a complimentary tech to HD. Its inclusion in new living-room size HDTV's is all-but final, and, outside of PERHAPS a new BD player and glasses, it is ready to go, circa March 2010. I fully expect new BD players to mirror the TV's, with 3D just coming in as automatic in most players within the next 12 months.


As mentioned, glasses will be priced extremely reasonably before you know it, and that will be the end of it. Millions of consumers will then have the TV, the sat/cable box, and perhaps even the new 3D capable BD players. Watch the ESPN and Discovery 3D offerings BLOW UP over the next 9 months.


Finally, the analogies some are making between COMPETING techs like BETA/VHS and HD DVD/BD are erroneous. 3D is, again, a complimentary technology (perhaps more akin to a primary tech in the long run) that will enjoy the unique position of allowing the market to gravitate to it at virtually any pace, so long as it doesn't get foolish with its weening into the public's eye.


There is no competition "against" 3D, and that will make all the difference in the world with its success...even while swimming against the waves of a dreadful economy AND a newly-adorned (and less apt to spend) just-bought-a-$2000-HDTV-2 years-ago public.


James


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mastermaybe* /forum/post/18211363
> 
> 
> ^ Rest assured, you will be.
> 
> 
> 3D is, at the very least, a complimentary tech to HD. It's inclusion in new living-room size HDTV's is all-but final, and, outside of PERHAPS a new BD player and glasses, it is ready to go, circa March 2010. I fully expect new BD players to mirror the TV's, with 3D just coming in as automatic in most players within the next 12 months.
> 
> 
> As mentioned, glasses will be priced extremely reasonably before you know it, and that will be the end of it. Millions of consumers will then have the TV, the sat/cable box, and perhaps even the new 3D capable BD players. Watch the ESPN and Discovery 3D offerings BLOW UP over the next 9 months.
> 
> 
> Finally, the analogies some are making between COMPETING techs like BETA and HD DVD are erroneous. 3D is, again, a complimentary technology (perhaps more akin to a primary tech in the long run) that will enjoy the unique position of allowing the market to gravitate to it at virtually any pace, so long as it doesn't get foolish with its weening into the public's eye.
> 
> 
> There is no competition "against" 3D, and that will make all the difference in the world with its success...even while swimming against the waves of a dreadful economy AND a newly-adorned (and less apt to spend) just-bought-a-$2000-HDTV-2 years-ago public.
> 
> 
> James



Exactly.


I think 3D is winning the award at AVS for being the most misunderstood video advancement to date given all of the (misapplied) labels of a "new format" and format-war allusions.


As you correctly explain, it's really a feature or enhancement to an existing HD infrastructure, not something akin to a new "format" that then has to battle it out for survival or adoption.


Since the 3D feature will be cheap and easy for manufacturers to add to new high-refresh sets, it will be a bonus feature that will become a mainstay of any high-performance television trying to beat out the bullet feature-sheet of the products next to it on the shelf at best buy. It adds virtually no cost to a blu-ray player, so as you say it will become standard on new blu-ray hardware in the next 12 months or so. I would expect that within a couple of years 3D enabled or 3D ready will be standard fare on any decent HDTV (projectors are a little more complicated, but I expect it gravitate there maybe a year or to behind the curve of direct-view sets).


----------



## fire407

I still think that almost all of the resistance here on this forum is due to the fact that there are a lot of fairly recent purchases that are not going to be state of the art soon. I will be in the market for a new TV later this year, and it will definitely be 3D capable.


----------



## thebland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18211607
> 
> 
> I still think that almost all of the resistance here on this forum is due to the fact that there are a lot of fairly recent purchases that are not going to be state of the art soon. I will be in the market for a new TV later this year, and it will definitely be 3D capable.



I doubt it. Not here.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thebland* /forum/post/18212061
> 
> 
> I doubt it. Not here.



are you serious?


Almost every other thread about 3D is loaded with folks saying "I just spent $$$ on my new projector/HDTV and I'm not about to upgrade again just for 3D". "Here" is famous for sour grapes when it comes to progress. Remember all of the people who bought 720P DLP projectors who then swore that they'd wait at least 5-10 years before even thinking about upgrading to 1080p because of their $$$ investment?


----------



## thebland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/18212178
> 
> 
> are you serious?
> 
> 
> Almost every other thread about 3D is loaded with folks saying "I just spent $$$ on my new projector/HDTV and I'm not about to upgrade again just for 3D". "Here" is famous for sour grapes when it comes to progress. Remember all of the people who bought 720P DLP projectors who then swore that they'd wait at least 5-10 years before even thinking about upgrading to 1080p because of their $$$ investment?



New technology makes folks like us do crazy things!


----------



## PrimeTime




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thebland* /forum/post/18210641
> 
> 
> It simply won't take off. It'll have the penetration / life span of HD DVD. It could survive as a Laser Disc like niche for front projection owners or LCD gamers.



Two words:


Gamers.


Kids.


The videogame business is bigger than the movie business in the USA.


Kids' fascination with 3-D will, through Mom, strongly influence the acquisition of the family 3-D display.


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PrimeTime* /forum/post/18214192
> 
> 
> Kids' fascination with 3-D will, through Mom, strongly influence the acquisition of the family 3-D display.



Thankfully, not a problem in my household.





W.C. Fields:

"Madam, there's no such thing as a tough child if you parboil them first for seven hours, they always come out tender."


----------



## fire407

This is fun to talk about now, but it's really going to get interesting once the TVs are in the homes and content is available. I'm sure all 3D won't be equal just like all HD isn't equal. Sometimes it will be fantastic and sometimes not good at all. The naysayers will point to the bad and keep repeating that we don't need it, while the enthusiasts will point to the great looking stuff, which will make some of the recent TV purchasers regret their decisions. I am looking forward to seeing the discussions on this forum.


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thebland* /forum/post/18210641
> 
> 
> And the glasses... uggh.[/i] has spoken!



Lots of marketing studies showing the glasses are a problem. Hence a big push for 'glasses free' 3D tv -- a few reports out there about 'emergent technologies' to manage this, but the consensus seems to be 'glasses free tech commercialization is at least 10 years away...'


Unless you're wearing glasses, I guess it will be hard to wander _in and out_ of the room when there is a movie showing in 3D . . . and if you're the only one who would prefer to watch in 2D, I assume you still have to wear glasses, but with the shutters for BOTH eyes set to 'left'...?!


----------



## jehingr

I'm a total noob as far as 3D, and I don't have a horse in this race at all. But one comment that I've read several times in this thread has certainly intrigued me.


The scenario is that my friend John has all the kinks worked out and is having a party to watch the big game on his 3D rig. But I arrive late and there is not a set of 3D glasses to be had.


The comments here indicate that I'll be able to enjoy the game as a normal HD 2D picture? How is that possible?


I'm not trying to stir anything up, I'm just curious how that would work from a technical perspective.


Thanks


----------



## shinksma




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jehingr* /forum/post/18215280
> 
> 
> The scenario is that my friend John has all the kinks worked out and is having a party to watch the big game on his 3D rig. But I arrive late and there is not a set of 3D glasses to be had.
> 
> 
> The comments here indicate that I'll be able to enjoy the game as a normal HD 2D picture? How is that possible?



It isn't that you and you alone could watch it in 2D with no glasses while everyone else watches in 3D using glasses. It is that everyone could watch in 2D if there is a shortage of glasses. Or everyone can watch in 3D. But the display devices will only present one or the other mode - not both.


The 3D signal contains a 2D image by default (pick the left or right eye). So all 3D displays can display any 3D signal as a 2D image instead ("degraded mode" I would call it







)


shinksma


----------



## jehingr

Thanks for clearing that up for me. My reading of some of the other posts seemed to indicate otherwise and I couldn't figure it out.


I appreciate your help.


----------



## walford

You could just get a handfull of eye patches in case you have a crowd and do not have enough glases for everone to watch in 3D.


----------



## cctvtech

How about making glasses with two left lenses (or two right lenses) for people who don't like 3D?


----------



## Paul Bigelow

I've never been happy with TV or Motion Picture 3D. Viewing through plastic glasses leaves a lot to be desired: fogginess, distortions, polarized lenses requires one's skull to not move or the other image bleeds through (there's a "sweet spot" effect).


Maybe I'm spoiled but the only two instances of 3D I've been happy with were using a Jules Richard F40 Verascope 35mm and a Soviet Sputnik Medium Format stereographic cameras. Two separate images. Viewers have optical quality glass and color corrected viewing lenses.


No motion but the 3D effect is breathtaking with medium format film.


Perhaps two rechargeable mini HD OLED screens fitted to glasses connected to the source via wireless might have some promise.


----------



## davehancock




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Paul Bigelow* /forum/post/18216850
> 
> 
> I've never been happy with TV or Motion Picture 3D. Viewing through plastic glasses leaves a lot to be desired: fogginess, distortions, *polarized lenses requires one's skull to not move or the other image bleeds through (there's a "sweet spot" effect)*.



All of the 3D technology being discussed for the home today are not prone to problems with moderate tilting of the head:
*Active Shutter Glasses*: (Used by most) Do not depend on polarized lenses to seperate the images. Tilt your head all you want and the two images will not bleed through.

*Circular Polarized Glasses*: (So far announced only for JVC, but commonly used in Digital 3D theaters today) Are not impacted by tilting heads.


HOWEVER: If a viewer tilts his/her head too far (say 30 degrees) they start to loose the 3D effect because the effective horizontal spacing of the eyes is reduced.


----------



## Dr_Who




mastermaybe;18211363
There is no competition "against" 3D said:


> That I think is the qoute to kill the comparisons to Laser Disc, HD TV, Beta etc. There is no competition out there to 3D that will kill it. A freind of mine knows I'm a gadget guy and uberconsumer and asked me about 3D TV. I really didn't know much and wasn't that interested. I went to the Sony store saw the demo and read as many articles as I could. Now I'm very interested and also very much in the market for an upgraded TV. I also game quite a bit so I fit the bill nicely for a target consumer. I think (unlike others here) this is a step forward in technology, it will not go away and is just the beginning. The unfortunate truth is that we pay a premium for new technology and it is obsolete in years (sometimes months). It's the nature of the beast. My super expensive computer in college was a 486 and I had a blazing fast 56k modem... it wasnt cheap. What would that cost today? Nothing... I bought the last of the Sony plasmas (61") for 14k. If you recall when Sony got out of the plasma market, the best resolution was 720p. I still have it since I can't sell it for squat and it is the most expensive computer monitor in the house. That in a word... sucks. But I knew it would depreciate with new technology. There is a premium for technology, the uber spenders will buy it because we have to have the latest technology now. The masses will wait for the prices to drop (and they will) and will follow suit buying everything at a cheaper price with more content available. So it's best to wait, let them work out the kinks and get the prices to fall. Other consumers like myself that are already in the market to upgrade sets will get their feet wet paying a premium for new technology. I truley don't understand the doom and gloom tone on this board. I guess none of us really know how it will turn out. I plan on waiting till at least May and reading some reviews of the 2D capabilites of these sets since that will be my primary mode of viewing. The Panny VT25 won best in show at CES and that was based off 2D performance the blacks are said be approaching if not at Kuro levels.
> 
> 
> So you pay a premium and buy an awesome 2D set and the same day have a trough of 3D PC games (there are tons already available) that you can now enjoy on your TV via HDMI. And when more movie content is released you can don glasses for a few hours watching a 3D movie. When the movie is over what I'll do with the glasses is simply take them off and enjoy a great set with deep blacks and plenty of pop. Sounds great to me, bring it on!


----------



## NetworkTV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *shinksma* /forum/post/18215632
> 
> 
> It isn't that you and you alone could watch it in 2D with no glasses while everyone else watches in 3D using glasses. It is that everyone could watch in 2D if there is a shortage of glasses. Or everyone can watch in 3D. But the display devices will only present one or the other mode - not both.
> 
> 
> The 3D signal contains a 2D image by default (pick the left or right eye). So all 3D displays can display any 3D signal as a 2D image instead ("degraded mode" I would call it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> 
> shinksma



Theoretically, you should still be able to enjoy the 3D broadcast without glasses - just not in 3D - since the two images are alternating, not being shown at the same time with the shutter glasses method. At worst, you shouldn't see anything worse than a bit of jutter in the image.


With the polorized method, though, there would likely be blurring that could be annoying without the glasses.


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dr_Who* /forum/post/18217024
> 
> 
> There is no competition out there to 3D that will kill it.



I guess the question is whether _very large screen_ UHDTV1 (or UHDTV2!) without 3D will be sufficiently immersive (there are already concerns about induced motion sickness!) . . . and arrive early enough before 3D's technical/consumer acceptance issues are resolved. I have to believe the CE manufacturers would like us to upgrade twice (maybe 3 times!) to UHDTV1/UHDTV2 with 3D, but the public is more likely to be sold the hardware as two different kinds of 'immersion technology', only one of which requires 'wearing glasses'. And the 'extra large screen and no glasses' concept is likely to be very appealing to the sports watching crowd [will people really go to Sports Bars to wear 3D glasses?!]


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NetworkTV* /forum/post/18217070
> 
> 
> Theoretically, you should still be able to enjoy the 3D broadcast without glasses - just not in 3D - since the two images are alternating, not being shown at the same time with the shutter glasses method. At worst, you shouldn't see anything worse than a bit of jutter in the image.
> 
> 
> With the polorized method, though, there would likely be blurring that could be annoying without the glasses.



Actually the shuttered glasses tech gives you double images on the screen if you're looking at it without the glasses. The frames are alternating, but the refresh rate is so fast that it looks like both images are constantly on.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18216510
> 
> 
> How about making glasses with two left lenses (or two right lenses) for people who don't like 3D?



Actually there has been talk of using this technique to allow people to watch two different programs on the same TV at the same time---obviously wearing headphones. I doubt the first generation sets will have this enabled.


----------



## davehancock

We do realize, don't we, that most likely all 3D capable sets will allow the user to shut off the 3D operation (and show only the left (or right) image)? The conversation lately "hints" that not everyone realizes that.


(Of course that doesn't solve the problem of 3 viewers and only 2 glasses.)


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *davehancock* /forum/post/18217399
> 
> 
> We do realize, don't we, that most likely all 3D capable sets will allow the user to shut off the 3D operation (and show only the left (or right) image)? The conversation lately "hints" that not everyone realizes that.



That will probably be true for 'live' tv, 'cos [at least in the US] I would expect mandatory backward compatibility with 2D HDTV. But I thought I saw some articles about 'issues' when showing 3D BDs in 2D . . . Don't I recall something about BD frame rate + 3:2 pulldown + left-eye-signal-only 'repeating' being a 'visual quality problem'...?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *davehancock* /forum/post/18217399
> 
> 
> (Of course that doesn't solve the problem of 3 viewers and only 2 glasses.)



Hence the big push for 'glasses free' 3D . . . In the meantime, mass production needs to push the price for glasses down to $1 or so per pair - so that families can have a dozen pair on hand for drop in guests - or everyone can own their own pair, whether they own a 3D tv or not! [Integrating shutter technology into regular glasses 'at no cost' would also be a big plus!]


----------



## davehancock




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/18217522
> 
> 
> That will probably be true for 'live' tv, 'cos [at least in the US] I would expect mandatory backward compatibility with 2D HDTV. But I thought I saw some articles about 'issues' when showing 3D BDs in 2D . . . Don't I recall something about BD frame rate + 3:2 pulldown + left-eye-signal-only 'repeating' being a 'visual quality problem'...?



I haven't seen any discussion of these issues. It might be that folks don't understand the 3D BD technology - leading to all sorts of speculation. 3D BD encodes the left eye signal normally - so regular BD players see it. The left eye video is at the normal frame rate (usually 24fps), just as current 2D - so that shouldn't be an issue at all.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/18217522
> 
> 
> Hence the big push for 'glasses free' 3D . . . In the meantime, mass production needs to push the price for glasses down to $1 or so per pair - so that families can have a dozen pair on hand for drop in guests - or everyone can own their own pair, whether they own a 3D tv or not! [Integrating shutter technology into regular glasses 'at no cost' would also be a big plus!]



Don't hold your breath for "glasses free 3D". The technology has been around for ages - and it has never been practical. None of the "announcements" of "breakthroughs" have changed this.


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/18217522
> 
> 
> [Integrating shutter technology into regular glasses 'at no cost' would also be a big plus!]



Ughhhh! First, they'll have to come up with better (ie. more attractive) designs!


----------



## thebland

Sony has a 3-D demo in their stores with a 60" LCD and active glasses. It was neat but the very high speed flickering was noticeable and somewhat bothersome. Especially noted on white bacgrounds. I did feel a bit 'off' after 15 minutes. Glasses were battery powered (almost out of juice). I just don't know about it. 2-D can be so good. I just don't see the big wow!


----------



## Ron Jones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Paul Bigelow* /forum/post/18216850
> 
> 
> I've never been happy with TV or Motion Picture 3D. Viewing through plastic glasses leaves a lot to be desired: fogginess, distortions, polarized lenses *requires one's skull to not move or the other image bleeds through (there's a "sweet spot" effect*)..............



This "bleed thru" is only true when linear polarized lens glasses are being used (e.g., IMAX 3D for Avatar). However, some theaters/films use circular polarized lens glasses (e.g., RealD version of Avatar) and this latter technology has very good separation of the right and left images even if you tilt your head. Of course LCD shutter glassses also display right and left images with very little breed thru independent of head position. However, in any case the displayed right and left images on the screen have a horizonal offset and with very much tilt to your head your eyes will not be able properly align the two images correctly.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18221673
> 
> 
> Ughhhh! First, they'll have to come up with better (ie. more attractive) designs!


Done!


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thebland* /forum/post/18221886
> 
> 
> Sony has a 3-D demo in their stores with a 60" LCD and active glasses. It was neat but the very high speed flickering was noticeable and somewhat bothersome. Especially noted on white bacgrounds. I did feel a bit 'off' after 15 minutes. Glasses were battery powered (almost out of juice). I just don't know about it. 2-D can be so good. I just don't see the big wow!



It has been suggested that low battery level leads to flicker.


And the 3DTV should have been a 52" (Bravia 52XL900)


Maybe you should return to the store and make sure the glasses you use are at full power to see if this makes a difference in youe experience.


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18224337
> 
> Done!



That's an improvement? Still ughhhhh! Besides, I doubt they could be made in prescription since there doesn't appear to be two separate lenses. Maybe it's the angle?


From my point of view, they might just as well make them like this:


----------



## AJSJones

So you really are vain enough to still worry about how you look when everyone else is actually watching the movie and _not actually looking at you_??? Prescription lenses could easily be fitted inside these things so there's only one pair needed at a time, and then you only actually wear them when the material is in 3D.


----------



## cctvtech

Sure, I guess I'd only look as stupid as everyone around me. Whatever!


Still, I haven't seen any references to prescription 3D glasses, even on the drawing boards.


See here:

Who's Ready to Buy Designer 3D Glasses?


----------



## AJSJones

From the article you linked


> Quote:
> So, glasses wearers out there? Are you ready to own your own custom pair of 3D glasses? And if so, are you only going to be in the market for designer brand glasses? *How important is it what you look like when you're not the center of attention* in an already darkened room?



I wear glasses and I hope there will be a "clip-on" shutter glasses or polarized or Dolby glasses that will look like the matching sunshade clip-ons I already have (they're polarized but not for 3D)


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18224779
> 
> 
> That's an improvement? Still ughhhhh! Besides, I doubt they could be made in prescription since there doesn't appear to be two separate lenses. Maybe it's the angle?



They are MUCH better looking than the 3 you showed.










Just blow up my image - you can see the black divider between the L & R lenses


And who said anything about perscription ASGs?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by cctvtech
> 
> Ughhhh! First, they'll have to come up with better (ie. more attractive) designs!



What about wearing contacts while watching 3D?


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AJSJones* /forum/post/18224949
> 
> 
> From the article you linked
> 
> 
> 
> I wear glasses and I hope there will be a "clip-on" shutter glasses or polarized or Dolby glasses that will look like the matching sunshade clip-ons I already have (they're polarized but not for 3D)



More like shutter glasses with clip on perscription glasses in front of them


----------



## davehancock




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AJSJones* /forum/post/18224949
> 
> 
> I wear glasses and I hope there will be a "clip-on" shutter glasses or polarized or Dolby glasses that will look like the matching sunshade clip-ons I already have (they're polarized but not for 3D)



Neat idea for an enterprising optometrist.


----------



## cctvtech

So this doesn't look silly to you?


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18225617










Like I said:



> Quote:
> More like shutter glasses with clip on perscription glasses in front of them


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18225617
> 
> 
> So this doesn't look silly to you?



If he's watching a 3D movie, heck, no why would it - I'd be watching the movie, not him. Unless it's a terrible one and I got bored and was looking around.


Now, if he's on the bus or subway , not watching recorded 3D, then it might look a little unusual. Just because there's some 3D content to watch *doesn't* mean we have to wear them all the time


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18225617
> 
> 
> So this doesn't look silly to you?



Not at all. Notice the sides are open. With some of the ASGs - they are like diving masks. You lose all of your perpherial vision because they are thick in the temple arms. like these:


----------



## davehancock




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18225779
> 
> 
> You lose all of your perpherial vision because they are thick in the temple arms.



Losing perpherial vision might be a very good thing in the home 3D viewing environment.


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18225779





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *davehancock* /forum/post/18226375
> 
> 
> Losing perpherial vision might be a very good thing in the home 3D viewing environment.



I agree (even in 2D the control of peripheral intrusions might be a cheaper batcave!) - but I don't want all _those_ wires going into my head


----------



## davehancock




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AJSJones* /forum/post/18230674
> 
> 
> I agree (even in 2D the control of peripheral intrusions might be a cheaper batcave!) - but I don't want all _those_ wires going into my head



Actually, those glasses (though Black and without the wires) look a lot like the Sony ones that I used today. They did do a nice job of cutting down (but not eliminating) the peripheral view.


----------



## Ron Jones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AJSJones* /forum/post/18224949
> 
> 
> From the article you linked
> 
> 
> 
> I wear glasses and I hope there will be a "clip-on" shutter glasses or polarized or Dolby glasses that will look like the matching sunshade clip-ons I already have (they're polarized but not for 3D)



Polarized (both linear and circular) clip-on glasses are already available at low cost. *HERE* is the link. Of course most home 3D displays will require LCD shutter glasses and for these you will be more likely to find oversized frame 3D glasses designed to accommodate eyeglass wearers (large enough to fit onto your head over your existing eyeglasses).


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *davehancock* /forum/post/18226375
> 
> 
> Losing perpherial vision might be a very good thing in the home 3D viewing environment.


*User Survey of Peripheral Vision-Restricting Devices*



> Quote:
> Abstract: For decades, civilian and military flight trainers have used peripheral vision-restricting devices (PVRDs) in order to enhance instrument flight training that was performed during periods of visual meteorological conditions (outside of clouds). In addition to limiting a pilot's view only to the primary flight instruments, PVRDs also cause the artificial exclusion of the full cockpit environment, i.e., overhead switches and gauges, and those on the center and opposite-pilot side of the instrument panel. There seems to be a general reluctance by Army aviators to wear PVRDs. *Anecdotal information suggests that the restrictions and loss of peripheral information and spatial orientation due to PVRD use may cause adverse physiological and psychological effects, including loss of situational awareness and spatial disorientation.* An extensive search for relevant literature and research produced no indications of any previous studies regarding the effects of PVRDs. The purposes of the survey were: 1) to collect the much-needed basic information in order to achieve an understanding of the extent of peripheral vision-restricting device use and their adverse effects, if any (real and/or perceived), on aviator training and proficiency, and 2) to use the data to determine if any further research into the effects and use of PVRDs is warranted. The results of this user survey identified which devices are being used and which are preferred, and provided an idea of their acceptability and apparent importance based on the opinions of a sample of the user community. Most importantly, these results indicate that there may be adverse effects associated with the use of PVRDs. It is recommended that future research be conducted during flight (actual or simulated) that evaluates different types of PVRDs as to their effectiveness as a training aid and their performance in minimizing the adverse effects identified in this survey.


 http://www.stormingmedia.us/84/8411/A841134.html


----------



## cctvtech

Great! More reasons to avoid 3D:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AJSJones* /forum/post/18230674
> 
> 
> but I don't want all _those_ wires going into my head














> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ron Jones* /forum/post/18230753
> 
> 
> 3D glasses designed to accommodate eyeglass wearers


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18230898
> 
> *User Survey of Peripheral Vision-Restricting Devices*
> 
> 
> http://www.stormingmedia.us/84/8411/A841134.html



I guess I won't be flying a plane while I'm watching 3D with my peripheral vision restricted. I won't be looking for the eject switch in the overhead bank of projector cables










It does sound, however, that restricting peripheral vision temporarily does detach you from your viewing environment and presumably therefore allow you to become more immersed in the entertainment ...


----------



## David Susilo

having a 3D presentation while reducing peripheral vision is an oxymoron.


You want 3D to get the realistic/immersive feeling but you lose the immersive attribute by reducing the peripheral vision.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David Susilo* /forum/post/18268366
> 
> 
> having a 3D presentation while reducing peripheral vision is an oxymoron.
> 
> 
> You want 3D to get the realistic/immersive feeling but you lose the immersive attribute by reducing the peripheral vision.



I think what folks mean is to reduce the non-video-content that's visible in your peripheral view... your bookcase and table lamp... so that your field of vision is only filled with the 3D video content.


Yes! peripheral vision is *good* with 3D, and for that matter 2D. 30-degree minimum. One of the reason I'm waiting for front-projection 3D solutions.


----------



## shinksma




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18230898
> 
> *User Survey of Peripheral Vision-Restricting Devices*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Anecdotal information suggests that the restrictions and loss of peripheral information and spatial orientation due to PVRD use may cause adverse physiological and psychological effects, including loss of situational awareness and spatial disorientation.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.stormingmedia.us/84/8411/A841134.html
Click to expand...


Coming from the flight/aircraft simulation industry, including army aviation, I agree with the quote that I have extracted above. However, I'm not sure if it has much relevance to home viewing of movies and other entertainment. Especially as the viewer is not likely to be moving his/her head left to right and up and down very much (which is the triggering behavior for disorientation).


If you ever get a chance to observe a fighter pilot fly any kind of simulator, watch their eyes and head movement: their head will be relatively immobile, using their eyes to observe their surroundings, because moving your head while pulling 6Gs really messes with your vestibular system. Using NVGs or other PVRDs forces them to move their head due to the limited field of view (as little as 40 deg vs the 180+ deg that is "normal" peripheral vision). But that's because they are scanning left/right for hostiles/friendlies/targets, and in the case of rotary-wing pilots, down through the chin windows - their Field of Regard (the total "integrated" FOV you need to cover to see everything relevant) is 180 deg or more L/R, and 100 deg Up/Down (more up for fighter pilots, more down for helos). There is a big push to increase PVRD FOV much closer to what is need to minimize head movement, but the technology just ain't there yet (or it remains a Black Project).


Watching a movie usually involves a Field of Regard of around 90 deg at most (unless sitting in front row of mega-cinema, or Omni-Max). I'm not sure of the FOV of home-use 3D glasses (whether or not fully-enclosed), but if they are anything like the glasses I used when I saw Avatar, or the glassess illustrated in some posts above, that seems to be well above the FOV needed to see the whole screen: about 100 deg, maybe a bit more.


On a slightly different note, aviators need to maintain situational awareness (SA) and spatial orientation because when they lose it, loss of control of the aircraft is imminent. But for the average bloke sitting at home watching Avatar in 3D, this isn't as crucial, and far less likely to occur, even using the equivalent of PVRDs on a big home cinema screen. And recovery of SA and regaining balance/orientation is usually fairly immediate after restoration of the full normal visual environment. However, I would advise that those susceptible to motion sickness to avoid such PVRD usage.



















shinksma


----------



## Varrius

Can someone explain to me why a new TV set is needed to view 3D? I watched a 3D short last night on my 10 yr old rear projection with glasses. Last years superbowl (2009) had a commercial in 3D, the glasses were provided at beerstands all around the country.


Why again are we spending money to buy new sets, using bandwidth to send new signals, when we can already watch 3D on old TV's? From what little (admittedly) I have read here about it, it seems perhaps it's a different, better technology. Is that really all we're going to accomplish with all of this is a little bit better 3D picture?


Just to throw my personal opinion in, regardless of the answer to the above question, I won't be gearing up for 3D until it's the only choice. I will, however, be pleased if I can get a 2D set or projector for less because 3D is available in the 'better' ones. Main reason: I spent 4k on laser surgery so I didn't have to wear glasses, I'm not going to spend another 2k or more so that I have to wear them again.


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Varrius* /forum/post/18278732
> 
> 
> Can someone explain to me why a new TV set is needed to view 3D? I watched a 3D short last night on my 10 yr old rear projection with glasses. Last years superbowl (2009) had a commercial in 3D, the glasses were provided at beerstands all around the country.



The reason you need a new TV for modern 3D is that they are using a new system for it. Your glasses are made for Anaglyphic 3D (with passive red-cyan glasses) and the new system is alternate-frame sequencing (with active shutter glasses/headgear). The two systems are not glasses-compatible nor will your old TV be capable of displaying the new technology.


----------



## Lee Stewart

*ANAGLYPH 3D* with glasses (top right corner)










*COLORCODE 3D*











*COLORCODE 3D Glasses*












*STEREOSCOPIC 3D* (Over/Under format) - A depiction - not actual











*STEREOSCOPIC 3D* (Side By Side format) - A depiction - not actual











*STEREOSCOPIC 3D Active Shutter Glasses*


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Varrius* /forum/post/18278732
> 
> 
> Can someone explain to me why a new TV set is needed to view 3D? I watched a 3D short last night on my 10 yr old rear projection with glasses. Last years superbowl (2009) had a commercial in 3D, the glasses were provided at beerstands all around the country.
> 
> 
> Why again are we spending money to buy new sets, using bandwidth to send new signals, when we can already watch 3D on old TV's? From what little (admittedly) I have read here about it, it seems perhaps it's a different, better technology. Is that really all we're going to accomplish with all of this is a little bit better 3D picture?



Dude, have you read anything at all?


Honestly... even about 3 minutes of reading about the new 3D would tell you that this is a whole new ball-game: that horrible/crappy/headache inducing red/blue method of so-called "3D" is NOT what this new system is about. We're talking about real high-quality 3D like you see at IMAX or at your 3D cinema for movies like UP and AVATAR (and Toy Story 3).


That's what's coming to the home, and that's why you'll need a new TV set that's capable of delivering the right and left eye picture separately.



> Quote:
> Just to throw my personal opinion in, regardless of the answer to the above question, I won't be gearing up for 3D until it's the only choice. I will, however, be pleased if I can get a 2D set or projector for less because 3D is available in the 'better' ones. Main reason: I spent 4k on laser surgery so I didn't have to wear glasses, I'm not going to spend another 2k or more so that I have to wear them again.



Do what you want for the reasons that make you happy.


if you do decide to enjoy 3D in the future, 3D sets will proabably start off a few hundred dollars more than their 2D counterpars, but in a few years all will be roughly the same price and 3D might be just another feature on the set like 120Hz or LED is a feature of a good LCD HDTV versus a lesser-quality model.


----------



## wtwieder

Just like 3D was a fad in the late 50's, I predict it will be a short lived fad now. Just like people got tired of the glasses and the headaches from 3D before, I don't see that much improvement with the current 3D technology to warrent replacing a TV that I just bought last year. I first saw UP in 2D, but then heard I just have to see it 3D. So I did. I was truly unimpressed with the visual "improvement". The story and animation is what made this movie special. The 3D didn't.


Cinerama, Cinemescope, and 3D were all created to bring people back into the movie theater's when TV began to compete with ticket sales. With HD Home theaters people began to have a home viewing experience that was even sharper, and clearer than the movies you see in the average theatre; so people began to stay home. Bringing back 3D is a gimmick, IMO, to bring people back to the theatre. But it is a gimmick that won't last, not just because we will soon have 3D TV's in our homes. It's a gimmick that degrades the picture quality and adds nothing to a story of the movie, and gives many people headaches. It's also a gimmick to get us to buy new TV's. It's a gimmick that won't work with me.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wtwieder* /forum/post/18279030
> 
> 
> But it is a gimmick that won't last, not just because we will soon have 3D TV's in our homes.



Just a gimmick that we will soon have in all our homes?


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wtwieder* /forum/post/18279030
> 
> 
> Just like 3D was a fad in the late 50's, I predict it will be a short lived fad now. Just like people got tired of the glasses and the headaches from 3D before, I don't see that much improvement with the current 3D technology to warrent replacing a TV that I just bought last year. I first saw UP in 2D, but then heard I just have to see it 3D. So I did. I was truly unimpressed with the visual "improvement". The story and animation is what made this movie special. The 3D didn't.



Please see my images above. There was a reason why 3D induced headaches and such in the 50's and then again in the 80's. The technolgy was crude compared to today's 3D. 3D is a success at the BO. The living room is next.



> Quote:
> Cinerama, Cinemescope, and 3D were all created to bring people back into the movie theater's when TV began to compete with ticket sales. With HD Home theaters people began to have a home viewing experience that was even sharper, and clearer than the movies you see in the average theatre; so people began to stay home. Bringing back 3D is a gimmick, IMO, to bring people back to the theatre. But it is a gimmick that won't last, not just because we will soon have 3D TV's in our homes. It's a gimmick that degrades the picture quality and adds nothing to a story of the movie, and gives many people headaches. It's also a gimmick to get us to buy new TV's. It's a gimmick that won't work with me.



3D is a presentation technology. It allows the audience/viewer to get closer and more immersive into the story being told.


You don't want 3D? Fine - no one is forcing you. Others don't agree with you though.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wtwieder* /forum/post/18279030
> 
> 
> Just like 3D was a fad in the late 50's, I predict it will be a short lived fad now. Just like people got tired of the glasses and the headaches from 3D before, I don't see that much improvement with the current 3D technology to warrent replacing a TV that I just bought last year. I first saw UP in 2D, but then heard I just have to see it 3D. So I did. I was truly unimpressed with the visual "improvement". The story and animation is what made this movie special. The 3D didn't.
> 
> 
> Cinerama, Cinemescope, and 3D were all created to bring people back into the movie theater's when TV began to compete with ticket sales. With HD Home theaters people began to have a home viewing experience that was even sharper, and clearer than the movies you see in the average theatre; so people began to stay home. Bringing back 3D is a gimmick, IMO, to bring people back to the theatre. But it is a gimmick that won't last, not just because we will soon have 3D TV's in our homes. It's a gimmick that degrades the picture quality and adds nothing to a story of the movie, and gives many people headaches. It's also a gimmick to get us to buy new TV's. It's a gimmick that won't work with me.



You've just argued against yourself.


Several of those "gimmicks" had some staying power and are considered defacto *improvements* in motion picture technology. Like when they added sound. Like when they added color. Like when they added widescreen. And your examples of Cinerama and Cinamascope... are you suggesting that those are pointless developments just because they consequenty brought movie viewers back to the theater? Would you prefer that all of cinema went native 1.33:1 instead? Do you think that Cinemascope is a "gimmick"? Did you feel that way when watching Lord Of The Rings and Up in their native aspect ratio of 2.35:1? Does it bother you that the blu-ray Discs deliver them in 2.35 to your home?


Or did you use the example of cinemascope used as a gimmick to get people back into the theater to try to suggest that 3D isn't an actual improvement we should embrace? If so, you just demonstrated exactly how much 3D might possibly have to contribute.


Why then does 3D have to be a "gimmick" with no ability to add to the art of film as these other examples? For many viewers, like myself, UP in 3D was more beautiful and more emotionally involving. Just like Up in native 2.35:1 is more dramatic visually than cropped to 1.33:1. Was UP in 2D still a great movie? Sure. Was it even more visually absorbing in 3D for those of us who connected with the experience? Absolutely. Does that make the 3D experience better? Yes it does, because being absorbed into a movie instead of just "watching" a movie is almost like being there. If you want to be there, naturally.


This notion that since "what matters is the story" is somehow an argument aginst 3D is perhaps the most ignorant argument anyone in a high-def forum can fathom.... considering that everything we talk about with 1080p video and lossless audio and aspect ratio and film grain is anything but "the story". Most folks at a forum like this *already know* that a good movie starts with a good story... and then we go from there. So since we can enjoy other technical aspects of delivering high fidelity moving images without "the story" negating their benefits, why is 3D dismissed because "the story is what's important"?


Anything worth watching is still a good movie because it's a good story with good characters. But that doesn't mean that the technical tools of visual art can't add to the experience... because after all movies are the art of motion pictures, which rely on these technical aspects to communicate. A story is not a "movie"... a story is a story, and you could read it from a book. A good story is still an important *part* of a movie, but a movie itself is the motion picture. And 3D is just another visual tool an artist can choose to use, or choose not to use.


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wtwieder* /forum/post/18279030
> 
> 
> Just like 3D was a fad in the late 50's, I predict it will be a short lived fad now. Just like people got tired of the glasses and the headaches from 3D before, I don't see that much improvement with the current 3D technology to warrent replacing a TV that I just bought last year. I first saw UP in 2D, but then heard I just have to see it 3D. So I did. I was truly unimpressed with the visual "improvement". The story and animation is what made this movie special. The 3D didn't.
> 
> 
> Cinerama, Cinemescope, and 3D were all created to bring people back into the movie theater's when TV began to compete with ticket sales. With HD Home theaters people began to have a home viewing experience that was even sharper, and clearer than the movies you see in the average theatre; so people began to stay home. Bringing back 3D is a gimmick, IMO, to bring people back to the theatre. But it is a gimmick that won't last, not just because we will soon have 3D TV's in our homes. It's a gimmick that degrades the picture quality and adds nothing to a story of the movie, and gives many people headaches. It's also a gimmick to get us to buy new TV's. It's a gimmick that won't work with me.



You sure said "gimmick" a lot.


Did you see Avatar in 3D? That's the benchmark for movies. Have you see any demos in person? I haven't seen UP in 3D so I can't tell you how it compares. But I did watch some of that new Scrouge movie in 3D. Avatar blew it away.


If someone's looking to buy a new hdtv, there will be plenty of mid-range models that will do 3D as well. So why avoid it? It's just an added feature.


----------



## Lee Stewart

*Movie Technology*


Technology That Failed - they are no longer in use as designed


2 Strip Technicolor

3 Strip Technicolor

Cinerama

VistaVision

Todd-AO

Super Panavision 70

Ultra Panavision 70

Showscan

Sensaround

Smell O Vision


Technology That Succeeded - Still in use as designed


Cinemascope - anamorphic 35mm (now primarily Panavision)

Multi-Track Audio.

SuperScope 2.35 - now Super 35 film format

IMAX 15/70

3D


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18279289
> 
> *Movie Technology*
> 
> 
> Technology That Failed - they are no longer in use as designed
> 
> 
> 2 Strip Technicolor
> 
> 3 Strip Technicolor
> 
> Cinerama
> 
> VistaVision
> 
> Todd-AO
> 
> Super Panavision 70
> 
> Ultra Panavision 70
> 
> Sensaround
> 
> Smell O Vision
> 
> 
> Technology That Succeeded - Still in use as designed
> 
> 
> Cinemascope - anamorphic 35mm (now primarily Panavision)
> 
> Multi-Track Audio.
> 
> SuperScope 2.35 - now Super 35 film format
> 
> IMAX 15/70
> 
> 3D



Lee,


Your assertion of "failed" really reeks of misunderstanding with many (not all) of the examples you list.


Most of these technologies were an evolution, and in many cases superior but more costly to alternatives that were developed later on and became more commercially viable.


For instance, Cinerama was as astounding IMAX-like experience that blows modern "widesreen" out of the water in terms of absorbing the viewer into the image. However, it was difficult to film, expensive to project, and so over time it was replaced with the less effective visually, but more cost-effective financially and practically cinemascope. In other words, widscreen lived on... it started with Cinerama and then morphed into Cinemascope and then other flavors... but widescreen survived.


The concept here that *succeeded* isn't the particular flavor of widescreen... it's widescreen.


Same with your example of 3-strip color: That was the first real hi-fi color system for motion cameras because of the speed required for motion capture and the fact that you needed B&W film nagative film stock to make it happen. Color didn't "fail", it merely progressed to using color negatives once the technology permitted... it evolved. In fact, the color stability of those old technicolor films will outlive any color negative stock known to man, so in many ways it was a better solution, just one that was replaced technical alternatives that cost less later on.


The issue that succeeded was "color"... not the particular brand of how to film color.



That's precisely what you've done (correctly) by saying "multi channel sound" as the issue that suceeded, rather than listing the dozens of mutli-channel sound formats that may have come and gone over time as the technology evolved.


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dallows* /forum/post/18279181
> 
> 
> If someone's looking to buy a new hdtv, there will be plenty of mid-range models that will do 3D as well. So why avoid it? It's just an added feature.



Actually, there's probably no reason to make any set with adequate refresh rate and resolution into a '2D only' model. The only obvious hardware difference between 'equivalent' 2D and 3D sets is that the 3D model likely needs 'double' the memory for frame/refresh buffering (or whatever the real terminology is...?!) Once there are good 2D/3D chipsets available, it will be counter productive to design/manufacture essentially identical '2D only' electronics...

_The only real saving if you don't want 3D tv is that you don't need to purchase the glasses..._







*"Just stick with the shades, Dude!"*


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/18279389
> 
> 
> Lee,
> 
> 
> Your assertion of "failed" really reeks of misunderstanding with many (not all) of the examples you list.
> 
> 
> Most of these technologies were an evolution, and in many cases superior but more costly to alternatives that were developed later on and became more commercially viable.
> 
> 
> For instance, Cinerama was as astounding IMAX-like experience that blows modern "widesreen" out of the water in terms of absorbing the viewer into the image. However, it was difficult to film, expensive to project, and so over time it was replaced with the less effective visually, but more cost-effective financially and practically cinemascope. In other words, widscreen lived on... it started with Cinerama and then morphed into Cinemascope and then other flavors... but widescreen survived.
> 
> 
> The concept here that *succeeded* isn't the particular flavor of widescreen... it's widescreen.
> 
> 
> Same with your example of 3-strip color: That was the first real hi-fi color system for motion cameras because of the speed required for motion capture and the fact that you needed B&W film nagative film stock to make it happen. Color didn't "fail", it merely progressed to using color negatives once the technology permitted... it evolved. In fact, the color stability of those old technicolor films will outlive any color negative stock known to man, so in many ways it was a better solution, just one that was replaced technical alternatives that cost less later on.
> 
> 
> The issue that succeeded was "color"... not the particular brand of how to film color.
> 
> 
> 
> That's precisely what you've done (correctly) by saying "multi channel sound" as the issue that suceeded, rather than listing the dozens of mutli-channel sound formats that may have come and gone over time as the technology evolved.



David - it is very simple. They were introduced, movie(s) were made using that technology - movies are no longer being made in that technology or movies are still being made using the technology.


As far as your gripe about color - the technology is vastly different between 2/3 strip Technicolor and say Metro-Color


----------



## Steve P.

The 3-D boom of the in the 1950's lasted less than 18 months, and most of the production happened in the first 6 months.


It wasn't the glasses (or even headaches) that killed it either, but rather the complicated and expensive distribution and projection system, which required the production, shipping and exhibition of two prints and the use of two projectors. The cost of the entire chain was significantly higher for all involved, it was more complicated, and when CinemaScope came along, that's what did it.


The 80s revival was more spread out, but produced far less films and less of an impact. Projection was simpler, but actually looked worse as the single strip methods in use did not produce a good image.


The current 3-D revival started 7 years ago, and shows no signs of peaking. The highest grossing film of all time is a 3-D movie.... there have already been nearly 50 3-D features released since 2003 (not to mention numerous IMAX documentaries) with countless more in the pipeline.


I think we're past the "short lived fad" phase. Perhaps the mania will settle down (and this might be a good thing) but it seems safe to say that the stereoscopic cinema will now be a part of the mix.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> David - it is very simple. They were introduced, movie(s) were made using that technology - movies are no longer being made in that technology or movies are still being made using the technology.
> 
> 
> As far as your gripe about color - the technology is vastly different between 2/3 strip Technicolor and say Metro-Color



Lee,


then why didn't you spell out every sound format that "failed" as a failed gimmick, rather than doing what you did by collecting them all together under a single general category of "multichannel sound"?


One minute you're separate out breeds of dogs and then the next minute just saying "dog".


It's not consistent to mix concepts this way in your list, as if they're all compable. In the cases you mentioned, breaking out general concepts into particular methodologies makes it look like "gimmicks" have failed when, infact, these innovation transformed the whole of cinema.


Rest assured that 3-strip color is hardly a "failed gimmick" of cinema.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/18279777
> 
> 
> Lee,
> 
> 
> then why didn't you spell out every sound format that "failed" as a failed gimmick, rather than doing what you did by collecting them all together under a single general category of "multichannel sound"?



Because it is just that - multi-track audio. That fact that was first (widely) as analog on MAG, then to optical, then digital on optical/seperate CD - it's still multi-track audio.


They are still using speakers and amps in theaters and mixing rooms.



> Quote:
> One minute you're separate out breeds of dogs and then the next minute just saying "dog".
> 
> 
> It's not consistent to mix concepts this way in your list, as if they're all compable. In the cases you mentioned, breaking out general concepts into particular methodologies makes it look like "gimmicks" have failed when, infact, these innovation transformed the whole of cinema.



Well David that is MY list. In each case of a failed technology - it was introduced - then it went away. It has nothing to do with morphing into or changing into. The tech is no longer in use . . PERIOD!



> Quote:
> Rest assured that 3-strip color is hardly a "failed gimmick" of cinema.



So where is it? They still shooting movies in the 3 Strip Technicolor process?


David - in almost all the cases I list as failed - they are superior technology. 65mm over 35mm, 3 Strip Technicolor over "Metro-Color" (single strip color film). But they are no longer around. Some went away quickly while others lingered on - but they are ALL gone.


EDIT:


LOL - I see no complaint about putting 3D as a movie technology that has succeeded. With all the "It's a gimmick" posters - it's not only still around - but doing better than ever. MUCH better.


----------



## DaViD Boulet

Lee,


The very concept that just because something is no longer used means "it failed" is a groundless extreme to start with.


Did optical soundtracks "fail"??? No, they were *replaced* with magnetic soundtracks.


Did magnetic soundtracks "fail"??? No, they are in the process of being replaced with digital soundtracks and will probably fade from prints over the next 10-20 years as digital soundtrack capability become available in all projection houses.


Now, what would be fair is to suggest that something that had a flash-in-the-pan lifespan could perhaps be interpreted as a "failure" when it vanished (maybe Cinerama would fit that description). But when a technology emerged and became established, and then only faded from use when it was replaced by something more economically justified (occasionally better, sometimes worse), that's not "failure", that's just evolution.


If a technology was used for over a decade or if the technology was improved and modified and rebranded over time, I don't think that "failure" is the right concept to try to apply.


All technologies have life-spans, but not everything is a "failure" just because it eventually gets replaced, as every technology would either already be or about to become a "failure" just because.


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/18279934
> 
> 
> Lee,
> 
> 
> The very concept that just because something is no longer used means "it failed" is a groundless extreme to start with.
> 
> 
> Did optical soundtracks "fail"??? No, they were *replaced* with magnetic soundtracks.
> 
> 
> Did magnetic soundtracks "fail"??? No, they are in the process of being replaced with digital soundtracks and will probably fade from prints over the next 10-20 years as digital soundtrack capability become available in all projection houses.
> 
> 
> Now, what would be fair is to suggest that something that had a flash-in-the-pan lifespan could perhaps be interpreted as a "failure" when it vanished (maybe Cinerama would fit that description). But when a technology emerged and became established, and then only faded from use when it was replaced by something more economically justified (occasionally better, sometimes worse), that's not "failure", that's just evolution.
> 
> 
> If a technology was used for over a decade or if the technology was improved and modified and rebranded over time, I don't think that "failure" is the right concept to try to apply.
> 
> 
> All technologies have life-spans, but not everything is a "failure" just because it eventually gets replaced, as every technology would either already be or about to become a "failure" just because.



Let me be the first to say I think you're wasting your time here.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/18279934
> 
> 
> Lee,
> 
> 
> The very concept that just because something is no longer used means "it failed" is a groundless extreme to start with.



Oh - sorry - then according to you Laserdisc was a HUGE success right?











> Quote:
> Did optical soundtracks "fail"??? No, they were *replaced* with magnetic soundtracks.



It was the other way around David. MAG came first.



> Quote:
> If a technology was used for over a decade or if the technology was improved and modified and rebranded over time, I don't think that "failure" is the right concept to try to apply.
> 
> 
> All technologies have life-spans, but not everything is a "failure" just because it eventually gets replaced, as every technology would either already be or about to become a "failure" just because.



It doesn't matter how long a technology was used. It was introduced - it's gone and hasn't been used in quite a while (for the purpose it was designed for).


And nothing has replaced the 65mm/70mm filming/presentation process


Cinemascope was introduced in 1952/53. It is still in use today. Cinemascope = anamorphic 35mm film process.


----------



## David Susilo

for argument's sake, you forgot Quadraphonic QS and SQ that failed. Dual-stylus stereo that failed, Magneto Optical Disc, Laser Film, Digital Compact Cassette, Elcaset... the list goes on.


----------



## DaViD Boulet

Lee,


you've entered your standard "reject all reasoned input" mode in the volley of so-called conversation. It usually takes about 2 back/forth posts after an initial challenge to an extreme statement to become this apparent, so we're right on track.



> Quote:
> It doesn't matter how long a technology was used. It was introduced - it's gone and hasn't been used in quite a while (for the purpose it was designed for).



Right, which just means exactly that... that a paritcular technology is or isn't being currently used today. That's not "success or failure"... that's just "is it being used today or not". Those aren't interchangeable concepts.




> Quote:
> It was the other way around David. MAG came first.



Mag is still with us. It has outlived optical film soundtracks in theater venues, and therefore replaced it regardless of which one came first.





> Quote:
> Oh - sorry - then according to you Laserdisc was a HUGE success right?



Laserdisc was here for over 20 years. That's longer than DVD at this point, and also longer than VHS. So by your prefered definition of time of use, was laserdisc more successful than VHS? Or perhaps longevity of a format's life cycle isn't the one and only rule by which to measure success?


The reason that laserdisc "failed" wasn't because it only was with us for 20 years, but rather because it never reached the market penetration and volume of sales of other competing video media, and so by comparison was never adopted as a mass medium by the general consumer. If the goal of "success" for laserdisc was mass adoption by the general consumer, as is most people's measure for consumer entertainment formats, then it "failed". If the success is measured against a medium that catered to the cinephile community providing OAR and bonus features, then laserdisc was successful as it reached a wide penetration among that niche group.


Of course, that's a much more accurate and in-depth understanding of "success" and "failure" than the black and white extremes your thought process seems to prefer. Better stick with your notion that if something is no longer in use, it must have "failed" to keep things simple.


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18279289
> 
> *Movie Technology*
> 
> 
> Technology That Failed - they are no longer in use as designed
> 
> 
> Smell O Vision



I don't understand why that one failed







. I saw *Scent of Mystery* in smell-o-vision in New York when it was in release. It was a blast! There was a scene where the actors were riding in a car and passed a goat farm. Phewwww!










The way it worked was they had 1/4" pipes between every other seat with small spray holes facing the audience. You could tell when a scent was coming because you could hear a hiss coming from the holes. Between each scene that had a smell associated, they would run a floral scent through the system to clear out the preceding scent.


----------



## David Susilo

They still use a variation of Smell-o-Vision at Disney parks for the ride "Soarin'". When the image shows a pine forest, you smell pine, when it shows orange trees you smell orange and when it shows ocean you smell ocean breeze... at least in the beginning, about 4 years ago.


The last time I went there (less than a month ago), the keep shooting pine scent regardless of the scene. Confusing!


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/18280280
> 
> 
> Lee,
> 
> 
> you've entered your standard "reject all reasoned input" mode in the volley of so-called conversatoin.
> 
> 
> Laserdisc was here for about 20 years. That's longer than CD, and vastly longer than DVD at this point.
> 
> 
> The reason that laserdisc "failed" wasn't because it only was with us for 20 years, but rather because it never reached the market penetration and volume of sales of other competing video media, and so by comparison was never adopted as a mass medium by the general consumer.
> 
> 
> Of course, that's a much more accurate and in-depth understanding of "success" and "failure". Better stick with you kindergarten notion that if something is no longer in use, it must have "failed" to keep things simple.



But LD morphed into DVD and according to you - if a product morphs into another product - it can be considered successful. And BTW - CD is still with us and will be for quite some time.


IMO - that is where your logic fails - it's just a connect the dots argument. Each tech has to be looked on it's own - it's life - and it's death if it has died/no longer in use. We are using different definitions - do not assume yours is correct because you say it is.


That doesn't mean it will not be resurected again. That is the case of SuperScope 235, now the Super 35 film format.


----------



## cctvtech

Interestingly, some casinos in Las Vegas (and elsewhere?) are using smell to trigger moods.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David Susilo* /forum/post/18280333
> 
> 
> They still use a variation of Smell-o-Vision at Disney parks for the ride "Soarin'". When the image shows a pine forest, you smell pine, when it shows orange trees you smell orange and when it shows ocean you smell ocean breeze... at least in the beginning, about 4 years ago.
> 
> 
> The last time I went there (less than a month ago), the keep shooting pine scent regardless of the scene. Confusing!



They no longer make MOVIES in Smell O Vision but yes - Disney still uses it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smell-O-Vision


----------



## GI Joe Sixpack




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David Susilo* /forum/post/18280333
> 
> 
> They still use a variation of Smell-o-Vision at Disney parks for the ride "Soarin'". When the image shows a pine forest, you smell pine, when it shows orange trees you smell orange and when it shows ocean you smell ocean breeze... at least in the beginning, about 4 years ago.
> 
> 
> The last time I went there (less than a month ago), the keep shooting pine scent regardless of the scene. Confusing!



When I happened to ride it last October no smells came at all. Perhaps the mechanism breaks down with regularity. The lack of scents did not diminish the experience, IMO. It's still the best ride Epcot has.


----------



## Art Sonneborn

I hope we see 3D adding to great films rather than substituting for them. I don't believe we are past the fad stage yet. There are 50 feature films in 3D every year ?


Art


----------



## GI Joe Sixpack




> Quote:
> Smell O Vision



I guess 3D isn't the final frontier for home theater after all. Think of it: a BD player that emits smells into your living room. There are plenty of movies just "ripe" for this, such as Scent of a Woman, The Naked Gun 2 1/2: The Smell of Fear, Sweet Smell of Success, and Odor in the Court, not to mention all those Chuck Jones cartoons featuring Pepe Le Pew.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> But LD morphed into DVD and according to you - if a product morphs into another product - it can be considered successful. And BTW - CD is still with us and will be for quite some time.
> 
> 
> IMO - that is where your logic fails - it's just a connect the dots argument. Each tech has to be looked on it's own - it's life - and it's death if it has died/no longer in use. We are using different definitions - do not assume yours is correct because you say it is.



In one sense laserdisc did evolve into DVD. Laserdisc was the first conumser application of a red-laser disc based system. It was that technological back-bone that CD and then DVD was built on... so the technological evolution was very relational. One could also say that blu-ray Disc has evolved out of this same technological progression, and all of these items together could be described as "the success of optical disc-based home-video technology".



How we choose to label the "technology" we're talking about changes the outcome of the success or failure statement if we're only relying on current use as our measure.



So what I'm suggesting is to just drop the "success or failure" part of the debate and then it doesn't matter how one arbitrarily chooses to categorize technology... just refer to instances of technolgy as used or no longer used. The qualifier of "success" or "failure" with each instance of technology is a much broader discussion that's much more complex and nuanced as it involves business objective, adoption, market penetration, financial return, and a host of other criteria beyond a simple question of whether something is no longer used, which is the inevitable end of every form of technology.


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18280349
> 
> And BTW - CD is still with us and will be for quite some time.



I'd just like to throw out there that I believe CD is basically dead. there's a more viable alternative to it.


----------



## DaViD Boulet

I think Lee is right that CD is not dead because as a consumer I can purchase CDs, not to mention that they are physically available in my brick and mortar shops for sale, so it's a format that is available, even if there are other alternatives out there competing for the consumers' dollar.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/18280651
> 
> 
> In one sense laserdisc did evolve into DVD. Laserdisc was the first conumser application of a red-laser disc based system. It was that technological back-bone that CD and then DVD was built on... so the technological evolution was very relational. One could also say that blu-ray Disc has evolved out of this same technological progression, and all of these items together could be described as "the success of optical disc-based home-video technology".



But LD itself was not a success. When you look up the words "niche product" - there is it's picture.


The fact that is was "the Mother of Optical Disc" doesn't make it's success any greater than it was.


You could say that B & W TV morphed into HDTV just like you could say the Model T Ford morphed into the Shelby Cobra



> Quote:
> How we choose to label the "technology" we're talking about changes the outcome of the success or failure statement if we're only relying on current use as our measure.
> 
> 
> So what I'm suggesting is to just drop the "success or failure" part of the debate and then it doesn't matter how one arbitrarily chooses to categorize technology... just refer to instances of technolgy as used or no longer used. The qualifier of "success" or "failure" with each instance of technology is a much broader discussion that's much more complex and nuanced as it involves business objective, adoption, market penetration, financial return, and a host of other criteria beyond a simple question of whether something is no longer used, which is the inevitable end of every form of technology.



I choose to use the words fail and succeed because they are/were technoloigical products for the movie industry. They were successful when they were introduced - but they didn't stand the test of time - they are no longer with us today - as some of them are. That is my yardstick and that is why I classified them the way I did.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/18280772
> 
> 
> I think Lee is right that CD is not dead because as a consumer I can purchase CDs, not to mention that they are physically available in my brick and mortar shops for sale, so it's a format that is available, even if there are other alternatives out there competing for the consumers' dollar.













Try walking into Wal Mart or Best Buy to buy a new LD or VHS movie










The CD format is still very much alive today.


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dallows* /forum/post/18280731
> 
> 
> I'd just like to throw out there that I believe CD is basically dead. there's a more viable alternative to it.



And that alternative is???


----------



## JOHNnDENVER




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18280970
> 
> 
> But LD itself was not a success. When you look up the words "niche product" - there is it's picture.
> 
> 
> The fact that is was "the Mother of Optical Disc" doesn't make it's success any greater than it was.
> 
> 
> You could say that B & W TV morphed into HDTV just like you could say the Model T Ford morphed into the Shelby Cobra
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I choose to use the words fail and succeed because they are/were technoloigical products for the movie industry. They were successful when they were introduced - but they didn't stand the test of time - they are no longer with us today - as some of them are. That is my yardstick and that is why I classified them the way I did.



Laserdisc was a success because many of the companies that put them out state they made profit over the long run on it. Maybe that is a better measure of success or failure.


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18281061
> 
> 
> And that alternative is???



Mainly mp3 players and usb flash drives. You don't see people with compact disc players attached to their hip anymore do you? When I need to copy a file from one computer to another and don't have a network to do it over, I use a flash drive, not a cd.


Just as an example.


Not to mention the extremely limited space compared to today's data sizes.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18280970
> 
> 
> But LD itself was not a success. When you look up the words "niche product" - there is it's picture.
> 
> 
> The fact that is was "the Mother of Optical Disc" doesn't make it's success any greater than it was.



Lee,


I already explained, very clearly, exactly how laserdisc's supposed success or failure was NOT a function of the fact that it's not here today, but rather a function of *how you define success for a consumer format*.


In other words, if it was a "failure", it's not because it's not here now, but rather because it never achieved market penetration with the average consumer when it was here... if that's the definition of success that we use (which is the most common working definition for success for home entertainment media).



> Quote:
> You could say that B & W TV morphed into HDTV just like you could say the Model T Ford morphed into the Shelby Cobra



They did morph.


Do you think that HDTV was invented out of thin air? Was the Shelby Cobra engineered on an island by mechanics who had no working knowledge of the internal combustion engine that has been refined and evolved for the last 100 years?


"Television" started as 525 interlaced B&W. Then it got color. Then it went digital and achieved increased resolution.


How we choose to frame these technological categories is a matter of choice... whether one talks about "television" or whether one talks about "NTSC analog television versus digital television".


Think of the dozens of formats... both analog and digital... collected under your umbrella of "multi-channel audio".


If you'd rather talk about "formats" versus "technologies" that's a more easily defined conversation because formats have established specifications, whereas technologies are fluid, evolving, and often inter-related. And in that case you wouldn't use the general term of multi-channel audio, but rather name each specific example of delivering multichannel audio just as you named each format for delivering color photography and widescreen film images.




> Quote:
> I choose to use the words fail and succeed because they are/were technoloigical products for the movie industry. They were successful when they were introduced - but they didn't stand the test of time - they are no longer with us today - as some of them are. That is my yardstick and that is why I classified them the way I did.



I understand that. But my painfully obvious point is that ALL successful technological products will eventually be replaced by something else and fall out of use. So the fact that something eventually falls out of use is not "failure" necessarily... it could just be that natural life-cycle of that technology has come to an end.


What "failure" would imply is that a product that was attempted to be brought to market didn't establish a foothold and was instead rejected or ignored by the market group for which it was intended to be adopted. One might say that mini-disc and DCC, for example were not "successful" (in the USA) because they never did what their creators expected them to do: replaced cassette tape. However, portable digital devices like the iPod were successful, because they did become widely adopted by the mass consumer market. The audio cassette tape was incredibly successful, even though it's a dead format today, because it did attain a wide-reaching adoption by music collectors while it was viable in the market place.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dallows* /forum/post/18281264
> 
> 
> Mainly mp3 players and usb flash drives. You don't see people with compact disc players attached to their hip anymore do you? When I need to copy a file from one computer to another and don't have a network to do it over, I use a flash drive, not a cd.
> 
> 
> Just as an example.
> 
> 
> Not to mention the extremely limited space compared to today's data sizes.



You just described how those portable devices have replaced *portable CD players*, not how they have replaced the CD format.


For instance, I no longer have a portable CD player, but instead have an iPod. But I still buy CDs, and then rip them using lossless compression for my iPod to maintain full fidelity for music on the go.


Some consumers do bypass the CD entirely and purchase or steal music online. But how one gets the digital music file is a second question... the portable device/player/PC don't in an of themselves negate the compact disc.


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dallows* /forum/post/18281264
> 
> 
> Mainly mp3 players and usb flash drives. You don't see people with compact disc players attached to their hip anymore do you? When I need to copy a file from one computer to another and don't have a network to do it over, I use a flash drive, not a cd.
> 
> 
> Just as an example.
> 
> 
> Not to mention the extremely limited space compared to today's data sizes.



Not to start a fresh argument on the relative merits of the various *compressed* bitrates used for mp3 or AAC but the typical bitrate of music downloads is 128k to 160k. That is far from high fidelity and not really suitable for more than casual listening.


Apart from downloads available at 256k or better on usenet and peer-to-peer groups (which are mostly CD rips anyway), the only way to get truly high quality music in a compressed file format is to rip them directly from a *CD* using at least 256k bitrate. In that case, the mp3 or iTunes player hasn't replaced the CD, it is an adjunct to it.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18281386
> 
> 
> Not to start a fresh argument on the relative merits of the various *compressed* bitrates used for mp3 or AAC but the typical bitrate of music downloads is 128k to 160k. That is far from high fidelity and not really suitable for more than casual listening.
> 
> 
> Apart from downloads available at 256k or better on usenet and peer-to-peer groups (which are mostly CD rips anyway), the only way to get truly high quality music in a compressed file format is to rip them directly from a *CD* using at least 256k bitrate. In that case, the mp3 or iTunes player hasn't replaced the CD, it is an adjunct to it.



I can hear the difference between full lossless and apple's compression codec running at 360 kbps while driving in the car.


i'd suggest that you really need actual lossless to really match CD quality...


----------



## Lee Stewart

Here you go David:

*Movie Technology*

Technology No Longer In Use


2 Strip Technicolor

3 Strip Technicolor

Cinerama

VistaVision

Todd-AO

Super Panavision 70

Ultra Panavision 70

Super Technirama 70

Dimension 150

Showscan

Sensaround

Smell O Vision*

Technology Still in Use


Cinemascope - anamorphic 35mm (now primarily Panavision)

Multi-Track Audio.

SuperScope 2.35 - now Super 35 film format

IMAX 15/70

3D


*Still in use at Disney World.


----------



## David Susilo




----------



## Jive Turkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GI Joe Sixpack* /forum/post/18280507
> 
> 
> I guess 3D isn't the final frontier for home theater after all. Think of it: a BD player that emits smells into your living room.



I've got a brother-in-law that provides more than enough smells, thank you very much.


----------



## wtwieder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dallows* /forum/post/18279181
> 
> 
> You sure said "gimmick" a lot.
> 
> 
> Did you see Avatar in 3D? That's the benchmark for movies. Have you see any demos in person? I haven't seen UP in 3D so I can't tell you how it compares. But I did watch some of that new Scrouge movie in 3D. Avatar blew it away.
> 
> 
> If someone's looking to buy a new hdtv, there will be plenty of mid-range models that will do 3D as well. So why avoid it? It's just an added feature.



Yes, I did see Avatar in 3D. It was an entertaining movie, but other than its ticket sales, I would not call it a benchmark movie. It took 10 years to make and cost well over 300 million dolloars to make, yet didn't win best movie, as everyone expected, did it? It did win 3 Academy awards, but a far cry from the record number of awards many predicted it would win. On the other hand, the low budget movie Hurt Locker, filmed in just 44 days, won 6 Academy awards including, Best Movie. There were few high tech special effects in the filming of this movie. Much of it was filmed with hand held cameras. No 3D, either. There was no big movie studie producing it. It struggled for distribution in theaters, yet walked away with the big awards. Many who have never seen this movie or heard of it, figure the Academy had to have made a mistake. However, I urge you to see it. I guarantee you will remember it a long time after you have forgotten the 3D and special effects of AVATAR. It tells a story about war in a way I have never experienced in a film. It did not need 3D to emerse you into the film. In fact it would have been a distraction. Instead, it had a newsreel candid quality that emersed you in the award winning screenplay, a fictional story, based on a collection of real events that happened during the Iraq war.


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wtwieder* /forum/post/18282533
> 
> 
> Yes, I did see Avatar in 3D. It was an entertaining movie, but other than its ticket sales, I would not call it a benchmark movie. It took 10 years to make and cost well over 300 million dolloars to make, yet didn't win best movie, as everyone expected, did it? It did win 3 Academy awards, but a far cry from the record number of awards many predicted it would win. On the other hand, the low budget movie Hurt Locker, filmed in just 44 days, won 6 Academy awards including, Best Movie. There were few high tech special effects in the filming of this movie. Much of it was filmed with hand held cameras. No 3D, either. There was no big movie studie producing it. It struggled for distribution in theaters, yet walked away with the big awards. Many who have never seen this movie or heard of it, figure the Academy had to have made a mistake. However, I urge you to see it. I guarantee you will remember it a long time after you have forgotten the 3D and special effects of AVATAR. It tells a story about war in a way I have never experienced in a film. It did not need 3D to emerse you into the film. In fact it would have been a distraction. Instead, it had a newsreel candid quality that emersed you in the award winning screenplay, a fictional story, based on a collection of real events that happened during the Iraq war.



We have paragraphs for a reason.


Anyway. I guess I needed to be specific in saying it would be the benchmark for 3D material (even though I heard live action stuff is the best), obviously just not "movies" in general. It didn't deserve to win best picture because of the story, pretty simple. It was just visually stunning. And that's all Cameron set out to do really.


It also didn't take 10 years to make. It sat on the shelf for about 14 before the technology was up to par to produce the visuals Cameron had in mind.


----------



## HokeySmoke

It took 4 years. And despite being shot in 44 days, Hurt Locker took quite a bit longer than that to finish.


There's a really good New Yorker article on Cameron, if you have the patience to read a few pages. One of the recurring things in his lfe is that "people love to hate him".

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2..._fact_goodyear


----------



## NetworkTV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18279570
> 
> 
> David - it is very simple. They were introduced, movie(s) were made using that technology - movies are no longer being made in that technology or movies are still being made using the technology.
> 
> 
> As far as your gripe about color - the technology is vastly different between 2/3 strip Technicolor and say Metro-Color



By your logic, VHS is a failure.


The players have been replaced by DVRs and optical disc formats. You can't buy pre-recorded cassettes any more. Many places don't even sell blank ones.


Of course, that would be ignoring all the millions of units sold, the billions of dollars in tapes sold and the fact that nearly every household in America has owned a recorder at some point.


Will you refer to SDTV as a failure in 10 years when the last of the new programming being produced in SD will likely have ceased and most households will have retired their older TVs?


More and more, TV production is moving away from film and toward digital cameras. There will come a day when theatrical films will become fully digital (probably when guys like Spielberg retire). Will you consider film as a shooting format a failure?


It's possible that medical advances will eliminate the need for glasses or contact lenses. Would you consider them failures at that point?


I think the problem is, you're confusing trends with fads.


The pet rock, mullets, Hammer Pants and the South Beach Diet were all fads. They had short life spans with no trend toward an evolved product. People had their fun with them and moved on to other fads. Even the constant cycle of people jumping on fad diets isn't a trend: it's a tendency. Trends show direction, not instinct.


Trends are long term. Trends don't necessarily mean the original product lives on, though. It means that it promotes behavior in that direction. So, motorcycles with kick starts and mechanical points leads to electronic ignition systems with kick starts, which leads to electronic ignition systems with electric starters and finally the addition of fuel injection. Eventually, carburetors in motorcycles, though still common, will be a thing of the past. If the Goldwing is any indication, we'll eventually see airbags in motorcycles as commonplace.


Now, will 3D eventually be seen as a fad or a trend. So far, it's existed in the fad stage, but, up to now, there hasn't been a real catalyst to allow it potentially become a trend. With the ability to soon bring real 3D tech into the home, replacing the cheap anaglyph crap we all had to put up with, we might just get there. Who knows.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GI Joe Sixpack* /forum/post/18280507
> 
> 
> I guess 3D isn't the final frontier for home theater after all. Think of it: a BD player that emits smells into your living room.



I had a DVD player like that. It emitted a horrible smell right before it caught fire one day...


----------



## hphase




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18280033
> 
> 
> It was the other way around David. MAG came first.



Wrong. Multichannel optical was first, in 1940. Optical stereo was used experimentally (with anamorphic wide-screen, by the way) in 1932. Mag didn't arrive until 1948.


So, did LPs "fail," too?


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hphase* /forum/post/18284214
> 
> 
> Wrong. Multichannel optical was first, in 1940. Optical stereo was used experimentally (with anamorphic wide-screen, by the way) in 1932. Mag didn't arrive until 1948.



Mutlichannel Optical (Fantasound) was used in a very limited number of theaters for Fantasia. And was not used again.


----------



## hphase




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18284455
> 
> 
> Mutlichannel Optical (Fantasound) was used in a very limited number of theaters for Fantasia. And was not used again.



Optical was still first. David was right. True, "Fantasound" as an exhibition format was only used for Fantasia, but optical recording for "dubbing" continued until the early 1950s, when magnetic recording overtook it.


----------



## Varrius




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cctvtech* /forum/post/18278784
> 
> 
> The reason you need a new TV for modern 3D is that they are using a new system for it. Your glasses are made for Anaglyphic 3D (with passive red-cyan glasses) and the new system is alternate-frame sequencing (with active shutter glasses/headgear). The two systems are not glasses-compatible nor will your old TV be capable of displaying the new technology.



Thank you, perfect answer to my question.


----------



## Varrius




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/18278887
> 
> 
> Dude, have you read anything at all?
> 
> 
> Honestly... even about 3 minutes of reading about the new 3D would tell you that this is a whole new ball-game: that horrible/crappy/headache inducing red/blue method of so-called "3D" is NOT what this new system is about. We're talking about real high-quality 3D like you see at IMAX or at your 3D cinema for movies like UP and AVATAR (and Toy Story 3).



No need to be rude, I admitted that I hadn't researched the tech very much. However, I did spend considerably more than 3 minutes in this forum section trying to find the answer to my question, appologies for not knowing the right search term or not finding the right thread.


Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I don't know a lot about 3D. I suspect there are others as well, perhaps a "Why you need a new TV for 3D" thread stickied at the top would be appropriate. Then again, if I'm the only ignorant one, perhaps not.


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NetworkTV* /forum/post/18284065
> 
> 
> we'll eventually see airbags in motorcycles as commonplace.



I've seen plenty of gasbags on motorcycles. Oh, you said *airbags* - never mind!


----------



## wtwieder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Varrius* /forum/post/18285674
> 
> 
> No need to be rude, I admitted that I hadn't researched the tech very much. However, I did spend considerably more than 3 minutes in this forum section trying to find the answer to my question, appologies for not knowing the right search term or not finding the right thread.
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I don't know a lot about 3D. I suspect there are others as well, perhaps a "Why you need a new TV for 3D" thread stickied at the top would be appropriate. Then again, if I'm the only ignorant one, perhaps not.



1+ I agree with you wholeheartedly. I lived through the previous 3D Movies of the 50's. We all thought it was great then, especially with rocks, arrows, and other objects landing in your laps. Frankly, the new 3D, IMO, isn't much better, certainly not less headache inducing for me, and perhaps they have eliminated those lap objects perhaps for good reasons, although I loved them as a kid.


I suppose if 3D was an added feature that we didn't have to pay more to have on our TVs, I wouldn't mind, since I don't need to use this feature if I don't want it. However, we usually pay more for new features until they become so commonplace that nobody is willing to pay a premium any more. I will not be getting rid of the HD TV I just purchased last year, just to "update" it for 3D headaches I don't want.


----------



## blacklion

Couple of interesting articles -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ogy-television 


> Quote:
> That's not the message that Sony and Samsung will want you to hear, but the introduction of any new technology for displaying a new form of content is always a chicken-and-egg challenge:


 http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserve...hnology-future 


> Quote:
> Studios are desperate for 3D to work, as are cinemas. They feel embattled at the moment. They've seen falling DVD and ticket sales, and while their audiences aren't disappearing, they're certainly dispersing. They're determined to sell you the idea that 3D is the future, but I think audiences and film-makers are savvier than that. Almost all film-makers believe that the future of film is not with Avatar-esque blockbusters, but with more modestly budgeted genre movies that have a built-in audience and a safer return.





> Quote:
> Hollywood has tried to use 3D in the past to add an extra wow factor to the movies and it has never worked for long. The technology now is amazing, but you need film-makers of great vision to ensure it really adds something worthwhile to a movie.


----------



## Art Sonneborn

"The technology now is amazing, but you need film-makers of great vision to ensure it really adds something worthwhile to a movie."


This has been my position. My hope is that we aren't going down the road of using 3D to replace quality acting and a great script. If one would use CGI as a reference I have some concerns.


Art


----------



## Pete

Does anyone else worry about the anti-social implications associated with 3D? Most families or couples sit around the TV and interact with one another. Staring mutely at a TV screen through 3D glasses precludes any casual conversation...sort of like wearing headphones that block out the world.


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/18292266
> 
> 
> Does anyone else worry about the anti-social implications associated with 3D? Most families or couples sit around the TV and interact with one another. Staring mutely at a TV screen through 3D glasses precludes any casual conversation...sort of like wearing headphones that block out the world.



How is there less of an ability for interaction? You're not sitting in a secluded pod or anything. If my GF and I are watching a movie together we're not talking to each other. Unless it's something we have have seen multiple times.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/18292266
> 
> 
> Does anyone else worry about the anti-social implications associated with 3D? Most families or couples sit around the TV and interact with one another. Staring mutely at a TV screen through 3D glasses precludes any casual conversation...sort of like wearing headphones that block out the world.



Great! I can't stand when people want to talk during a movie.


But they can talk about what they are seeing (can't stand that either







)


Wait till the movie is over to talk about it.


Of course if there are commericals, that is a good time to talk.


----------



## Pete

I'm not talking about a 3D movie...I'm referring to normal TV programing...sports and such.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/18292437
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about a 3D movie...I'm referring to normal TV programing...sports and such.



Well in that case - I don't see any difference in the social environment.


If people yell and scream and cheer during a sporting event in 2D - why not in 3D?


Probably the only difference would be that they keep their eyes facing forward instead of turning away and looking at each other.


----------



## Pete

It's just that if 3D is as "immersive" as proponents say it is, I have visions of us all staring at the TV like zombies in dark glasses.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/18292917
> 
> 
> It's just that if 3D is as "immersive" as proponents say it is, I have visions of us all staring at the TV like zombies in dark glasses.



LOL! Maybe that is why people talk while watching TV - because it isn't immersive as it could be.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/18292266
> 
> 
> Does anyone else worry about the anti-social implications associated with 3D? Most families or couples sit around the TV and interact with one another. Staring mutely at a TV screen through 3D glasses precludes any casual conversation...sort of like wearing headphones that block out the world.



Wearing headphones may indeed inhibit conversation.


Wearing glasses does not.


And actually the social effect will likely be the opposite of what concerns you... it will actually *bring people together* when viewing 3D versus the disjointed, half-interested way families often watch TV or shows together in 2D where someone is cooking, someone is reading, someone is playing a portable game while all the while supposedly "watching" the show. With 3D you'd actually have to stop doing whatever else you're doing and watch the show... for real... because of the 3D eyewear. However, watching a movie as a focused activity doesn't in any way stifle conversation or the ability to bond... rather the opposite... everyone is partaking i the same exerience together at the same time in a way that seldom happens with casual viewing.


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/18292917
> 
> 
> It's just that if 3D is as "immersive" as proponents say it is, I have visions of us all staring at the TV like zombies in dark glasses.



As opposed to now? Don't people do the same thing? Just sit and watch tv, or movies? I think you're trying to throw some curveball out there that the tech just isn't being proposed for.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/18292437
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about a 3D movie...I'm referring to normal TV programing...sports and such.



Since sporting events will be much more visceral and realistic in 3D, they should be more emotionally compelling as well with the "you are there" sensation... wearing glasses or not, that should also compell a much more intense shared group experience.


----------



## NetworkTV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18292972
> 
> 
> LOL! Maybe that is why people talk while watching TV - because it isn't immersive as it could be.



I'm pretty certain that once we got over the early adopter phase of HDTV, we discovered that "Sunrise Earth" was no longer enough to satisfy us for entertainment.


I'm sure that in the beginning, people will tune to the 3D version of the "Paint Drying Channel" of those chips of exterior grade latex look 3D enough...


I'll bet we'll find plenty of households where we'll hear things like "Oh, that grass seems to be growing right at me!"....


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NetworkTV* /forum/post/18293091
> 
> 
> I'm pretty certain that once we got over the early adopter phase of HDTV, we discovered that "Sunrise Earth" was no longer enough to satisfy us for entertainment.



LOL! Or watching the DirecTV HD loop 100's of times because that was the only HD available all the time.



> Quote:
> I'm sure that in the beginning, people will tune to the 3D version of the "Paint Drying Channel" of those chips of exterior grade latex look 3D enough...



Ahhh - the bad movies I watched just because they were in HD



> Quote:
> I'll bet we'll find plenty of households where we'll hear things like "Oh, that grass seems to be growing right at me!"....



They seem to be turning away from that type of use of 3D (







) but if they ever release the movie; *Comin' At Ya* - could be a lot of laughs

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082193/


----------



## NetworkTV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18293289
> 
> 
> They seem to be turning away from that type of use of 3D (
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) but if they ever release the movie; *Comin' At Ya* - could be a lot of laughs
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082193/



I'm waiting for "Nature Trail to Hell"....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_Trail_to_Hell


----------



## Pete

Dancing with the Stars 3D should be a hoot.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NetworkTV* /forum/post/18293337
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for "Nature Trail to Hell"....
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_Trail_to_Hell



Better yet









*The Stewardesses*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stewardesses


----------



## NetworkTV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/18293430
> 
> 
> Dancing with the Stars 3D should be a hoot.



Actually, that would probably be pretty cool...


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/18293430
> 
> 
> Dancing with the Stars 3D should be a hoot.



Or Ax Men 3D










How about Shark Week in 3D


----------



## Steve P.

You'll get your wish regarding COMIN AT YA!, as the movie has recently undergone a conversion to digital 3-D and they plan to re-issue it around the country. Sort of a "redux" with re-edited footage, SIN CITY like color effects; and hopefully, lots of covergence corrections.

www.cominatyanoir3d.com


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NetworkTV* /forum/post/18293337
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for "Nature Trail to Hell"...



"Wow, you must have an awful lot of free time on your hands."


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve P.* /forum/post/18293505
> 
> 
> You'll get your wish regarding COMIN AT YA!, as the movie has recently undergone a conversion to digital 3-D and they plan to re-issue it around the country. Sort of a "redux" with re-edited footage, SIN CITY like color effects; and hopefully, lots of covergence corrections.
> 
> www.cominatyanoir3d.com



LOL! Could be a great "Midnight Movie Madness" for 3D theaters - like they used to show Heavy Metal or Rocky Horror


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18293779
> 
> 
> LOL! Could be a great "Midnight Movie Madness" for 3D theaters - like they used to show Heavy Metal or Rocky Horror



For BD-3D, _Rocky Horror_ is the kind of movie that will need to be rendered in both _Anaglyphic 3D_ *AND* _alternate-frame sequencing_ *SIMULTANEOUSLY* - because, while one half of the audience will probably accept wearing active shutter glasses, the other half is likely to insist on wearing the traditional passive red-cyan glasses required by Anaglyphic 3D...!?









_And, because "total darkness" is compatible with all forms of 3D, Shades Rule, Dudes!_


----------



## pmreedjr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/18292266
> 
> 
> Does anyone else worry about the anti-social implications associated with 3D? Most families or couples sit around the TV and interact with one another. Staring mutely at a TV screen through 3D glasses precludes any casual conversation...sort of like wearing headphones that block out the world.



I think you'll find the ASG don't inhibit normal interaction at all. While I was viewing the Sony 3D demo at a Sony Style store, I was carrying on a conversation with another fellow who also had glasses on. We commented on the display, did I/he see flicker etc. We could look at each other and around the store with only a momentary lack of the 3D effect when we turned our attention back to the display.


----------



## Deja Vu

I like 3D and can afford it so if it doesn't cause eyestrain I'll be buying in sometime this year. You guys wait ten years if you like, but I'm not going to. At present I'm still living so I'm going to celebrate that fact and buy into 3D very soon!!!


----------



## Lee Stewart

MYTH: The 3D of the 1950's was Anaglyph 3D. . . . Not true



> Quote:
> As with practically all of the features made during this boom, Bwana Devil was projected dual-strip, with Polaroid filters. During the 1950s, the familiar disposable anaglyph glasses made of cardboard were mainly used for comic books, two shorts by exploitation specialist Dan Sonney, and three shorts produced by Lippert Productions. However, even the Lippert shorts were available in the dual-strip format alternatively


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-D_fil...2.80.931955.29 


Here is a list of the 3D films from the 1950's starting with Bwana Devil and ending with The Revenge Of The Creature - ALL are 35mm dual strip 3D films.


Bwana Devil

Wings of the Hawk

Those Redheads from Seattle

The Stranger Wore a Gun

The Nebraskan

The Moonlighter

The Maze

The Glass Web

Second Chance

Sangaree

Robot Monster

Miss Sadie Thompson

Man in the Dark

Louisiana Territory

Kiss Me Kate

It Came from Outer Space

Inferno

I, The Jury

House of Wax

Hondo

Hannah Lee (aka Outlaw Territory)

Gun Fury

Fort Ti

Flight to Tangier

Devil's Canyon

Charge at Feather River

Cease Fire

Cat Women of the Moon

Arena

The Diamond Wizard

The Mad Magician

Taza, Son of Cochise

Southwest Passage

Phantom of the Rue Morgue

Money from Home

Jivaro

Jesse James vs the Daltons

Gorilla at Large

Gog

Dial M for Murder

Dangerous Mission

Creature from the Black Lagoon

Son of Sinbad

Revenge of the Creature



The list came from:

http://www.3dmovielist.com/list.html 


The 3D process for each film came from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3-D_films#G


----------



## fpconvert

I had the chance to see Alice in Wonderland in 3d on friday and I have one question.


Do I have to have degraded video quality in order to have 3d?


Much of the film seemed to have washed out colors and vhs grade resolution. At least with the viewmaster device I had as a kid, everything was sharp and colorful. This thing was a mess.


Well, at least I didn't end up with a splitting headache and the popcorn actually tasted good. Still overpriced... but good.


----------



## davehancock




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fpconvert* /forum/post/18309077
> 
> 
> I had the chance to see Alice in Wonderland in 3d on friday and I have one question.
> 
> 
> Do I have to have degraded video quality in order to have 3d?



No



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fpconvert* /forum/post/18309077
> 
> 
> Much of the film seemed to have washed out colors and vhs grade resolution. At least with the viewmaster device I had as a kid, everything was sharp and colorful. This thing was a mess.



Where did you see it? Do you know what theater 3D projection system was used (RealD, Technicolor 3D, IMAX 3D, etc.).

It could be that some of the color issue that you observed as the director's intent. For example, Tim Burton's (2D) Sweeney Todd had VERY subdued colors (except for the blood, of course).


----------



## Steve P.

Add these to the list of 3-D movies shot in 1953-54:


Drums of Tahiti

The French Line

The Bounty Hunter

Dragonfly Squadron

Top Banana

The Command (shot in seperate CinemaScope and 3-D versions)


Only DRUMS OF TAHITI and THE FRENCH LINE had any 3-D release; the rest were released in flat 2-D only.


There were also a handful of foreign features, such as EL CORAZON Y LA ESPADA.


----------



## TRT

2012 can't get here fast enough!


2012=Estimated year 3D will dissappear like The Betamax format.


----------



## David Susilo

Until the flicker completely fixed, the price of the goggles are below $50, and the weight of the goggles can be reduced by at least 50%, 3D will not catch on.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David Susilo* /forum/post/18310607
> 
> 
> Until the flicker completely fixed



Some see it and some don't. They didn't see it with the Panasonic 3DTV's



> Quote:
> the price of the goggles are below $50



They managed to get BD players down from $1000 to $200 very quickly. I am sure the ASGs will follow all mass produced items - economy of scale.



> Quote:
> and the weight of the goggles can be reduced by at least 50%, 3D will not catch on.



Seeing as how almost all 3DTVs will use ASGs, I am sure that R & D has stepped up quite a bit.


3D is a new format and like all new formats, it depends on the early adopter. The tech is more important than the price of it to them.


----------



## davehancock




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18311044
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by David Susilo
> 
> Until the flicker completely fixed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That could be a problem for LCD tech. and their slow liquid crystal response time. Not a problem for PDP tech.
Click to expand...


As you well know, phospher decay has been an issue for Panasonic - that's why they changed two of the phospers for the 3D sets. According to the curves published by Panasonic, there still is some green phospher lag with the newest phosphors.


Besides, flicker is not the result of liquid crystal response time.


Also, many (including myself) have seen Sony demos with no flicker.


So it is a bit premature to make absolute statements.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *davehancock* /forum/post/18311157
> 
> 
> As you well know, phospher decay has been an issue for Panasonic - that's why they changed two of the phospers for the 3D sets. According to the curves published by Panasonic, there still is some green phospher lag with the newest phosphors.



But as you know by reading the reviews on the Panasonic 3DTV, neither flicker nor ghosting/crosstalk is an issue - both are unseen.



> Quote:
> Besides, flicker is not the result of liquid crystal response time.
> 
> 
> Also, many (including myself) have seen Sony demos with no flicker.
> 
> 
> So it is a bit premature to make absolute statements.



Oops - my bad - I meant the ghosting/crosstalk being seen on the Sony and Samsung 3D demos with their 3D LCD's (post changed). 2ms doesn't compare to .001ms.


----------



## David Susilo

Well, I don't need review or spec sheet. I went to CES, saw all kinds of 3D demos, all have flickers from 'noticable' to 'you gotta be blind if you don't see it' range.


The best so far is plasma-based 3D, but as I witnessed myself, it's still noticable. Many people at CES experienced the same thing. Is it due to the 103" screen? I don't know. But just like BD wasn't ready for primetime during its first year, 3D is currently in worse condition but with a much higher entry-ticket.


----------



## Drexler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fpconvert* /forum/post/18309077
> 
> 
> I had the chance to see Alice in Wonderland in 3d on friday and I have one question.
> 
> 
> Do I have to have degraded video quality in order to have 3d?
> 
> 
> Much of the film seemed to have washed out colors and vhs grade resolution. At least with the viewmaster device I had as a kid, everything was sharp and colorful. This thing was a mess.
> 
> 
> Well, at least I didn't end up with a splitting headache and the popcorn actually tasted good. Still overpriced... but good.



I just came back from Alice in Wonderland at IMAX 3D. Looked like crap. Hotspotting, washed out colors, low brightness, poor contrast, blurry image and ghosting (left and right eye images leaking in to each other). There was also smudge somewhere in the optical system leaving visible, in focus, stationary dirt on the screen. Also, the 3D effect was more like cut-out cardboard than real 3D. Especially for real film and faces.


My previous experience with RealD 3D and Dolby 3D was night and day better (both Avatar). These were very sharp, had very good contrast and bright colors.


The RealD seemed to have a slight advantage in 3D effect for especially faces (though I wouldn't say for sure before I can see it again), and definitely had the more comfortable glasses, whereas the Dolby 3D had better brightness and more accurate colors.



The negatives:


I got slight eyestrain with RealD, it also seemed to get a colorshift with the glasses and could have used more lumens (though I'm sure this is totally dependent on the particular cinema setup not the 3D system itself (old bulb, underpowered projector etc)).


The Dolby 3D had no issues with eyestrain but the glasses were so small you had to sit in exactly the right position the whole time to take in the screen, which became uncomfortable.


In conclusion: Could I get glasses with a larger viewing area I would go for Dolby 3D, otherwise I would prefer RealD.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David Susilo* /forum/post/18311421
> 
> 
> Well, I don't need review or spec sheet. I went to CES, saw all kinds of 3D demos, all have flickers from 'noticable' to 'you gotta be blind if you don't see it' range.
> 
> 
> The best so far is plasma-based 3D, but as I witnessed myself, it's still noticable. Many people at CES experienced the same thing. Is it due to the 103" screen? I don't know. But just like BD wasn't ready for primetime during its first year, 3D is currently in worse condition but with a much higher entry-ticket.



Seems Gary doesn't agree with you:

http://hdguru.com/panasonic-tc-p50vt...t-review/1391/ 


Nor does Consumer Reports:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1234663


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/18311441
> 
> 
> I just came back from Alice in Wonderland at IMAX 3D. Looked like crap. Hotspotting, washed out colors, low brightness, poor contrast, blurry image and ghosting (left and right eye images leaking in to each other). There was also smudge somewhere in the optical system leaving visible, in focus, stationary dirt on the screen. Also, the 3D effect was more like *cut-out cardboard than real 3D. Especially for real film and faces.
> *



Anything shot with cameras (i.e. the people and faces) was shot with a single lens not in 3D







Then composited into the 3D CGI. I think I'm not expecting to enjoy the technical aspects of Alice anywhere near as much as Avatar.

The Tim Burton colors/wash/grain/VHS look is typical and no reflection on current 3D capability.


----------



## Drexler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AJSJones* /forum/post/18311957
> 
> 
> Anything shot with cameras (i.e. the people and faces) was shot with a single lens not in 3D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then composited into the 3D CGI. I think I'm not expecting to enjoy the technical aspects of Alice anywhere near as much as Avatar.
> 
> The Tim Burton colors/wash/grain/VHS look is typical and no reflection on current 3D capability.



Do you know if coming releases like "Clash of the titans" et al. are using single lens cameras or not? The combination cgi 3D with flat film doesn't work very well. It just looks strange.


If Alice in Wonderland IMAX 3D was the only 3D presentation I had seen I wouldn't have been interested in 3D anymore. However, I know just how good it can be after watching Avatar in Dolby 3D/RealD 3D...


I don't know if I can believe Tim Burton wants the film to look so washed out and blurry. Doesn't make any sense. It was so bad I was longing for the movie to finish so I could get out of there...


----------



## zoro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/18312682
> 
> 
> Do you know if coming releases like "Clash of the titans" et al. are using single lens cameras or not? The combination cgi 3D with flat film doesn't work very well. It just looks strange.
> 
> 
> If Alice in Wonderland IMAX 3D was the only 3D presentation I had seen I wouldn't have been interested in 3D anymore. However, I know just how good it can be after watching Avatar in Dolby 3D/RealD 3D...
> 
> 
> I don't know if I can believe Tim Burton wants the film to look so washed out and blurry. Doesn't make any sense. It was so bad I was longing for the movie to finish so I could get out of there...



so what you saying is 3d real is better than 3d imax?


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/18312682
> 
> 
> Do you know if coming releases like "Clash of the titans" et al. are using single lens cameras or not? The combination cgi 3D with flat film doesn't work very well. It just looks strange.
> 
> 
> If Alice in Wonderland IMAX 3D was the only 3D presentation I had seen I wouldn't have been interested in 3D anymore. However, I know just how good it can be after watching Avatar in Dolby 3D/RealD 3D...
> 
> 
> I don't know if I can believe Tim Burton wants the film to look so washed out and blurry. Doesn't make any sense. It was so bad I was longing for the movie to finish so I could get out of there...



Clash of The Titans is another 2D to 3D conversion


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zoro* /forum/post/18312852
> 
> 
> so what you saying is 3d real is better than 3d imax?



3D native (real) is shooting with a "Stereo" two camera rig - one for the left eye and one for the right eye.











IMAX 3D can be both 3D native - they make docs in 15/70 IMAX 3D - 2 camera rig. Or it can be "The IMAX Experience" - showing a 3D shot film (digital) which is converted to IMAX 15/70 film stock then shown in an IMAX theater as IMAX 3D.


----------



## David Susilo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18311451
> 
> 
> Seems Gary doesn't agree with you:
> 
> http://hdguru.com/panasonic-tc-p50vt...t-review/1391/
> 
> 
> Nor does Consumer Reports:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1234663



Many people disagree that DLP rainbow effect can cause motion sickness... but I do feel sick (and actually throw up) after any prolonged exposure to DLP projection. The same goes with my daughter (and actually happened twice at my local Costco).


Many people do not see TV's 60 Hz flicker, I do. Only when it's at 72 Hz and higher I only notice flicker and not get distracted by it.


I also see 60 Hz flicker on supposedly-static (always-on) LED Xmas lights. Most people don't see that.


My point is, I see what I see, my daughter and I are very sensitive in detecting flicker and imperfection, and as long as I can see it, I'm not buying it.


HD Guru is not what I consider a respectable reviewer and even less so with Consumer Reports.


----------



## knobby




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David Susilo* /forum/post/18313578
> 
> 
> Many people disagree that DLP rainbow effect can cause motion sickness... but I do feel sick (and actually throw up) after any prolonged exposure to DLP projection. The same goes with my daughter (and actually happened twice at my local Costco).
> 
> 
> Many people do not see TV's 60 Hz flicker, I do. Only when it's at 72 Hz and higher I only notice flicker and not get distracted by it.
> 
> 
> I also see 60 Hz flicker on supposedly-static (always-on) LED Xmas lights. Most people don't see that.
> 
> 
> My point is, I see what I see, my daughter and I are very sensitive in detecting flicker and imperfection, and as long as I can see it, I'm not buying it.
> 
> 
> HD Guru is not what I consider a respectable reviewer and even less so with Consumer Reports.



i have a dlp also and i can see rainbows but my family members don't.


----------



## Deja Vu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bill4903485* /forum/post/17924592
> 
> 
> Hello?? Early home 3D is going to come nowhere near approaching movie theatre 3D like Avatar. I feel sorry for uneducated consumers if it's sold in that manner. Anyhow we've had standard def 3D for years on CRTs and broadcast television. And those paper glasses were cheap. I don't remember people getting that excited about the effect.
> 
> 
> Similar to that treadmill you bought after New Years that now acts as a coat rack. That is today's HDTV 3D.



Every review I've read of the new 3D T.V.'s, although not 100% sold on it, all claim the 3D image to be remarkable. The Panasonic review claims that the image actually surpassed Avatar's quality at the theatre! Proctor Central basically said the same thing. I guess the more I educate myself the more "uneducated" I become.


----------



## David Susilo

compared to the anaglyph glasses, they ARE remarkable. But compared to the movie going experience (ie watching 3D in a properly calibrated theatre), it's pale in comparison.


Do you guys know how most reviews are done? The company (in this case, Panasonic and Samsung), submit their products to the magazine/e-zine. If that's not the case, they do a press invite where they are picked up and dropped off (paid by the manufacturer), dine (or at least have some kind of food and drink, usually at least wine and cheese event), and given a rah-rah spiel of what the products can be like in the future, then show a little bit of demo.


Relationship will need to be maintained, no paid reviewer will say outright that a product is not ready for launch etc.


The same thing happened during the launch of BD (which I am an early adopter and still believe that during its first 2 years, BD should've not been launched).


3D is a gimmick and will remain a gimmick if the technology and the movie making side of it are not fixed and fixed now. (ie getting rid of flicker, dramatically reduce the weight of the glasses -- and use bluetooth instead of IR, shooting the movie using actual 3D camera instead of 2D converted to 3D such as Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans).


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David Susilo* /forum/post/18314079
> 
> 
> compared to the anaglyph glasses, they ARE remarkable. But compared to the movie going experience (ie watching 3D in a properly calibrated theatre), it's pale in comparison.



Which is to be expected. Professional equipment costing over $100,000. Motion JPEG2000. 10 to 12bit color depth. No 4:2:0 sampling


IMO, your expectations for consumer 3D are way too high.



> Quote:
> 3D is a gimmick and will remain a gimmick if the technology and the movie making side of it are not fixed and fixed now. (ie getting rid of flicker, dramatically reduce the weight of the glasses -- and use bluetooth instead of IR, shooting the movie using actual 3D camera instead of 2D converted to 3D such as Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans).



Why BT versus IR? Sony who advocates BT, is using IR for their glasses.


----------



## David Susilo

IR have been proven over and over during the demo to go out of sync every now and then due to the interference from the LCD/Plasma itself. Within any of the 20 minute presentations, the shutter glasses went out of sync at least once. Whereas BT won't have that problem.


Also comparing movie experience vs home experience, IMO, is not asking too much. For 2D presentations, home presentation can be quite close to the theatre experience, yet the 3D (due to its infancy and unreadiness state) is still very extremely far behind the theatre experience.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David Susilo* /forum/post/18315870
> 
> 
> IR have been proven over and over during the demo to go out of sync every now and then due to the interference from the LCD/Plasma itself. Within any of the 20 minute presentations, the shutter glasses went out of sync at least once. Whereas BT won't have that problem.



So why isn't Sony using BT? Vizio will reportedly use BT for their glasses.



> Quote:
> Also comparing movie experience vs home experience, IMO, is not asking too much. For 2D presentations, home presentation can be quite close to the theatre experience, yet the 3D (due to its infancy and unreadiness state) is still very extremely far behind the theatre experience.



You are comparing 1080P HD to the high speed duplicated 35mm prints seen at theaters?


Most of the 3D theaters use polarized light for 3D. That isn't being used so far for consumer 3D here in the USA.


And you still have ALL the limitations of consumer HD/3D that are not there with professional digital 2D and 3D.


----------



## David Susilo

why Sony use IR instead of BT? why don't you ask Sony? I don't work for them.


Like I said, I write based on my personal experience.


and yes, home presentation have surpassed my minimum level of acceptability vs the professional theatre, 3D is still very far from it. In 2 years, hopefully, it reaches my minimum level of acceptability and then I'll get into the 3D bandwagon.


----------



## Drexler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zoro* /forum/post/18312852
> 
> 
> so what you saying is 3d real is better than 3d imax?



Yes, from the presentations I have seen it's night-and-day better.


(With the caveat I have only seen IMAX 3D (Alice), RealD 3D (Avatar) and Dolby 3D (Avatar) once each, and not with the same film (Alice vs Avatar). RealD and Dolby were very close and very good, whereas IMAX 3D was very poor. Not only the 3D effect but the overall picture quality as well: blurry, low contrast, black and white crush, washed out etc.


I was amazed by the sharpness, contrast and dark scene performance of the Dolby/Real D systems, whereas the IMAX more looked like an old, low contrast LCD projector playing a VHS tape in comparison...


How much is caused by the theater itself, the particular film and the display technology I can't say for sure, but at least the ghosting is definitely caused by the the IMAX polarization technology)


----------



## David Susilo

I find the above statement interesting because I watched Avatar at two IMAX theatres (one is in Canada, the other is at AMC Universal Studios Hollywood), and yes, the picture is dark, blurry, crushed dynamic range. The Real3D showing look MUCH better.


----------



## HokeySmoke

I had exactly the opposite experience seeing two showings of Avatar. RealD was dim, flickered, and had tons of motion artifacts due to the triple flash. I had a headache after seeing the movie and became motion sick an hour later. Digital Imax 3D was bright and comfortable and I had no ill effects. I did not notice any clipping or crushing and I was specifically looking for those things. Both were in brand new Regal Cinema theaters.


I have heard numerous times that the RealD system has the worst extinguishing ratio of all and that's why they need to "ghostbust" every film they show. The process reduces contrast in one eye to get rid of the ghosting in high contrast scenes.


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HokeySmoke* /forum/post/18316281
> 
> 
> I had exactly the opposite experience seeing two showings of Avatar. RealD was dim, flickered, and had tons of motion artifacts due to the triple flash. I had a headache after seeing the movie and became motion sick an hour later. Digital Imax 3D was bright and comfortable and I had no ill effects. I did not notice any clipping or crushing and I was specifically looking for those things. Both were in brand new Regal Cinema theaters.
> 
> 
> I have heard numerous times that the RealD system has the worst extinguishing ratio of all and that's why they need to "ghostbust" every film they show. The process reduces contrast in one eye to get rid of the ghosting in high contrast scenes.



I don't know the tech details but I can tell you this.


My RealD experience with Avatar was vastly superior to the IMAX and LieMAX showings I went to.


RealD was bright, sharp, crisp, clear, other adjectives meaning similar things.


It was like a different movie. The 3D was so much better in RealD. The glasses were a lot better to. I read that the design of the RealD glasses makes it easier to move your head and such without losing the 3D affect. Which was true.


So imo from my experience RealD was better. And the quick Sony demo I saw (didn't stay for the whole thing sadly) was about the same. Only plagued by some in-store issues. Can't understand why it wouldn't be in a separate room and more theater like if they actually wanted to show off the product.


----------



## rto

In spite of the fact that the industry appears determined to go all-in, I think that given the current state of 3D, it's the technological equivalent of a bridge too far. IMO, any 3D scheme for the home requiring the use of glasses is doomed to massive failure.


----------



## David Susilo

especially the expensive, heavy, and prone-to-scratches types (you know, all the attributes of the current ones they're selling for US$149.99 per pair)


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David Susilo* /forum/post/18316683
> 
> 
> especially the expensive, heavy, and prone-to-scratches types (you know, all the attributes of the current ones they're selling for US$149.99 per pair)



IMO, this post is pretty much out of left field. It references nothing and doesn't really make any sense.


----------



## dallows




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rto* /forum/post/18316668
> 
> 
> In spite of the fact that the industry appears determined to go all-in, I think that given the current state of 3D, it's the technological equivalent of a bridge too far. IMO, any 3D scheme for the home requiring the use of glasses is doomed to massive failure.



I disagree to a point. I think if the given effect is worth while and the material worth watching it will succeed. I don't have a problem donning 3D glasses for a few hours while I watch a movie or something. And I don't think average joe will either.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rto* /forum/post/18316668
> 
> 
> In spite of the fact that the industry appears determined to go all-in, I think that given the current state of 3D, it's the technological equivalent of a bridge too far. IMO, any 3D scheme for the home requiring the use of glasses is doomed to massive failure.



I think you are totally wrong. It's not just the industry that wants 3D, it's people like me. I am so looking forward to being able to see great 3D in the home---and believe me, I've seen enough of the new demos to know that they can look great. I still think that vast majority of people here that are against it are just angry that the system they have a lot of money invested in is about to be no longer state of the art.


----------



## JOHNnDENVER

If glasses were what was making it doomed to failure, movie theaters would be facing the same thing. So I do not think glasses dooms it at all.


----------



## rto




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JOHNnDENVER* /forum/post/18316899
> 
> 
> If glasses were what was making it doomed to failure, movie theaters would be facing the same thing. So I do not think glasses dooms it at all.




I don't think wearing glasses for a brief period during a film experience in a theater is comparable to using them at home on a daily basis. For example, I'd have to shell out $500 for everyone in my family to watch something together at one time. Then I'd have to keep track of them, much like having 5 more remotes, which in my house would be problematic at best, so say nothing of the issue of fragility from accidentally sitting or stepping on a pair. I can see myself sitting in my HT wearing special glasses, but I'm having a great deal of trouble imagining the average consumer with an average sized set at an average viewing distance finding the experience compelling enough to put up with the inconvenience of having to don a pair of glasses that fairly scream *techno-geek!* on a regular basis.


The fact that so many early-adopter/techno-geeks like myself -who would presumably represent the most eager audience for this tech- have expressed so much skepticism in this thread, indicates to me that selling the average consumer on the idea isn't going to be an easy task.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rto* /forum/post/18317203
> 
> 
> I don't think wearing glasses for a brief period during a film experience in a theater is comparable to using them at home on a daily basis. For example, I'd have to shell out $500 for everyone in my family to watch something together at one time. Then I'd have to keep track of them, much like having 5 more remotes, which in my house would be problematic at best, so say nothing of the issue of fragility from accidentally sitting or stepping on a pair. I can see myself sitting in my HT wearing special glasses, but I'm having a great deal of trouble imagining the average consumer with an average sized set at an average viewing distance finding the experience compelling enough to put up with the inconvenience of having to don a pair of glasses that fairly scream *techno-geek!* on a regular basis.



The pricing of ASGs for 3DTVs is a 'today/brand new product" issue. They aren't going to stay at $150/pr for a long time. Just like BD players didn't stay at $1000 very long. Economies of scale. Samsung's previous ASG's (SSG-1000) sold for about $45 each.


Yes - you are going to have to exhibit some care with them. Moreso then things like remotes. Depends how much desire you have for S3D in your home.



> Quote:
> t that so many early-adopter/techno-geeks like myself -who would presumably represent the most eager audience for this tech- have expressed so much skepticism in this thread, indicates to me that selling the average consumer on the idea isn't going to be an easy task.



Many here have issues like spending a lot of money on their current HT setup and can't afford to replace an expensive display. It certainly isn't the cost of a 3D BD player with Sony's models of $250 and $200. Don't want to replace your AVR - buy a BDT300/BDT350 instead of the Sony's.


3DTV is a new technology. Just like HDTV was 11 years ago. With expectations of 1M 3DTVs sold in 2010, it is obvious that the average consumer is not the market for 3DTV. As always - it's the eary adopter.


----------



## rto




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18317278
> 
> 
> The pricing of ASGs for 3DTVs is a 'today/brand new product" issue. They aren't going to stay at $150/pr for a long time. Just like BD players didn't stay at $1000 very long. Economies of scale.
> 
> 
> Yes - you are going to have to exhibit some care with them. Moreso then things like remotes. Depends how much desire you have for S3D in your home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many here have issues like spending a lot of money on their current HT setup and can't afford to replace an expensive display. It certainly isn't the cost of a 3D BD player with Sony's models of $250 and $200. Don't want to replace your AVR - buy a BDT300/BDT350 instead of the Sony's.
> 
> 
> 3DTV is a new technology. Just like HDTV was 11 years ago. With expectations of 1M 3DTVs sold in 2010, it is obvious that the average consumer is not the market for 3DTV. As always - it's the eary adopter.




Right, but if a significant number of early adopters who clearly comprise the membership of AVS are skeptical, what does that say about the likelyhood of JQ public buying in? In a few years when volumetric displays are available, everyone will need to replace their fancy, relatively new, but now hopelessly obsolete 3D displays for the new-and-improved version of 3D. I just think "future shock" is ever more relevant when it comes to consumer technologies, and the current version of 3D is more likely than not to make that apparent in a big way....just my opinion, of course.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rto* /forum/post/18317362
> 
> 
> Right, but if a significant number of early adopters who clearly comprise the membership of AVS are skeptical, what does that say about the likelyhood of JQ public buying in? In a few years when volumetric displays are available, everyone will need to replace their fancy, relatively new, but now hopelessly obsolete 3D displays for the new-and-improved version of 3D. I just think "future shock" is ever more relevant when it comes to consumer technologies, and the current version of 3D is more likely than not to make that apparent in a big way....just my opinion, of course.



How big is the early adopter market? 1%? 2%?. If so, that would be approx. 1M to 2M USA HH's. AVS doesn't have anywhere's near that kind of membership nor active members posting.


What new and improved version of 3D? You actually believe they will release 4K to consumers "in a few years?"


----------



## David Susilo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dallows* /forum/post/18316730
> 
> 
> IMO, this post is pretty much out of left field. It references nothing and doesn't really make any sense.



IMO you didn't even bother reading the previous post before mine.


----------



## rto




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18317544
> 
> 
> How big is the early adopter market? 1%? 2%?. If so, that would be approx. 1M to 2M USA HH's. AVS doesn't have anywhere's near that kind of membership nor active members posting.
> 
> 
> What new and improved version of 3D? You actually believe they will release 4K to consumers "in a few years?"




I'm not talking about 4K, but volumetric displays that don't require the use of glasses for 3D imaging. AVS members obviously don't represent the entirety of early-adopting consumers, but members participating in this thread are _representative_ of that market segment, and a great many of them have expressed skepticism about the benefits/viability of 3D tech in its' current form. Would that have been the case in discussions of HDTV and HDM at an equivalent point during their launch phases? I'm getting a bit older, but I seem to remember all but universal enthusiasm among early-adopters for those now-established technologies when they were just coming on-line.


----------



## David Susilo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JOHNnDENVER* /forum/post/18316899
> 
> 
> If glasses were what was making it doomed to failure, movie theaters would be facing the same thing. So I do not think glasses dooms it at all.



It feels like nobody is actually reading the posts.


It's NOT the glasses that will kill 3D, it's the $150, heavy, needs to be recharged, not fitting over prescription glasses properly that will be the problem.


In my case, I gotta spend $900 just for the glasses for my HT room and always have to have the glasses charged before every movie viewing event at my place. Also for two-row seatings, it's been demonstrated that I will need multiple sync emitter.

Plus (again) the weight of the glasses whoich is about 5 to 7 times heavier than cinemas' passive glasses.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rto* /forum/post/18317640
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about 4K, but volumetric displays that don't require the use of glasses for 3D imaging. AVS members obviously don't represent the entirety of early-adopting consumers, but members participating in this thread are _representative_ of that market segment, and a great many of them have expressed skepticism about the benefits/viability of 3D tech in its' current form. Would that have been the case in discussions of HDTV and HDM at an equivalent point during their launch phases? I'm getting a bit older, but I seem to remember all but universal enthusiasm among early-adopters for those now-established technologies when they were just coming on-line.



Actually there was a huge resistance to HDTV in the early days. People were saying that NTSC was good enough, especially if it could be seen as component video in the home, and then once DVDs could be displayed in 480p, then that was considered good enough by a large portion of this forum. Only a handful of us bothered with D-Theater which was JVC's version of DVHS that allowed us to watch full 1920X1080 HD movies in the home, which tells you that hardly anyone cared about video quality--even here. There was a huge resistance here when HDMI was announced. Early adopters had sets that only had component or firewire connections. Mitsubishi had a whole setup that used firewire to communicate with DVHS and the TV. I'm still watching a Fujitsu plasma that looks great, but it doesn't have HDMI. So we all get angry when the standards change right after we bought in, but I am surprised how many here want everyone else to not to be able to have 3D just because they aren't ready to upgrade themselves. Understand, standards are going to change--if you think HDMI 1.4a is the final version, you are kidding yourself. Eventually there will be an HDMI 2.X and 3.X. At some point you buy in and enjoy your setups as long as you want. Later this year you will be able to buy a 3D Blu-ray player that works on a 3D TV. If you have DirecTV, you will get three HD channels. I feel safe that if I buy in THIS YEAR, that I'll get years of good 3D entertainment even with minor standards changes. I understand that my new 3D TV will not get 3D TV over the air---because there are no standards for it yet and there may never be any. However, I would never come on this forum and campaign to keep it away from other people just because I'm not ready to upgrade.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rto* /forum/post/18317640
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about 4K, but volumetric displays that don't require the use of glasses for 3D imaging. AVS members obviously don't represent the entirety of early-adopting consumers, but members participating in this thread are _representative_ of that market segment, and a great many of them have expressed skepticism about the benefits/viability of 3D tech in its' current form. Would that have been the case in discussions of HDTV and HDM at an equivalent point during their launch phases? I'm getting a bit older, but I seem to remember all but universal enthusiasm among early-adopters for those now-established technologies when they were just coming on-line.



Auto 3D displays are years away from reaching consumers. Some say 7 to 10. LOL - you may see 4K introduced before Auto 3D.










And we have yet to compare the 3D you see wearing glasses versus the 3D you see from an Auto 3D. You can't assume that Auto 3D is better just because there are no glasses to wear.


You weren't here in 1999 were you? I was, under a different name. We STILL had "heavy" discussions about LD versus DVD on PQ and AQ.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David Susilo* /forum/post/18317653
> 
> 
> It feels like nobody is actually reading the posts.
> 
> 
> It's NOT the glasses that will kill 3D, it's the $150, heavy, needs to be recharged, not fitting over prescription glasses properly that will be the problem.



Samsung's previous battery powered glasses sold for $49/pr.


AFAIK, only Samsung is offerring rechargable glasses as an option over their battery powered glasses. All you have to do is keep a few batteries around. They only cost a few dollars a piece. Xpand says 250 hours before the battery has to be replaced.


And the Panasonic glasses are designed to fit much better with glasses wearers then say the Sony's shown here, due to their cutout design:





















> Quote:
> In my case, I gotta spend $900 just for the glasses for my HT room and always have to have the glasses charged before every movie viewing event at my place. Also for two-row seatings, it's been demonstrated that I will need multiple sync emitter.
> 
> Plus (again) the weight of the glasses whoich is about 5 to 7 times heavier than cinemas' passive glasses.



In my application - only need two pair of glasses. So I have zero issues like you have.


And isn't it amazing that they went from these:











To these:


----------



## blacklion

Its not just about resistance to new technological advances or envy of other consumers. Its about getting tired and fed up of being taken for granted and/or a ride by Hollywood studios and CE companies.


And then, there's the content issue. I can easily see how video games, action flicks and sci fi/fantasy genre movies will benefit from 3D. Ditto nature documentaries. I would like though for someone to explain to me how exactly screen adaptations of Shakespeare - 'Hamlet', 'Othello' or 'Merchant of Venice' or other types of drama movies - indy/arthouse and European movies - would benefit from rendition in 3D.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blacklion* /forum/post/18317956
> 
> 
> Its not just about resistance to new technological advances or envy of other consumers. Its about getting tired and fed up of being taken for granted and/or a ride by Hollywood studios and CE companies.
> 
> 
> And then, there's the content issue. I can easily see how video games, action flicks and sci fi/fantasy genre movies will benefit from 3D. Ditto nature documentaries. I would like though for someone to explain to me how exactly screen adaptations of Shakespeare - 'Hamlet', 'Othello' or 'Merchant of Venice' or other types of drama movies - indy/arthouse and European movies - would benefit from rendition in 3D.



You didn't mention sports, which probably will be the biggest draw for 3D.


Looking at all the announced 3D BD's - they are all CGI cartoons.


----------



## BobearQSI




> Quote:
> Any 3D scheme for the home requiring xxxxxx is doomed to massive failure.





> Quote:
> So many early-adopters/techno-geeks ... have expressed so much skepticism ... indicates to me that selling the average consumer on the idea isn't going to be an easy task.





> Quote:
> what does that say about the likelyhood of JQ public buying in?





> Quote:
> It's NOT the xxxxxx that will kill 3D, it's the yyyyyy that will be the problem.



There have been comments like these all over the 3D threads. I really don't understand why someone would think that their opinion of the market for 3D is going to be more correct than these huge companies who have no doubt done extensive market research on the subject. Sony, Panasonic, et al. do not just take a wild guess as to what the consumer will want and start implementing it. They do what's called Market Research - they put tons of $$$ into this as well, and they interview JQ public as well early adopters and techies. This is the way large businesses operate these days. They have their own numbers on the likelihood of 3D being a success and forecasts for how many early adopters/JQ public, and apparently they believe from their research that there's enough market for them to produce and sell this, and this is what they are doing. And I am willing to bet their forecasts are much more likely accurate than the opinions of forum posters.


I see little value in back and forth arguing about whether this is going to succeed based on opinions of a very small group of people. Now someone saying "crap! I don't want to spend $big_amount to get 3D, are there alternatives?" is much more fruitful than "3D is going to fail miserably because people won't pay $big_amount."


[/endrant]


----------



## fpconvert

On this one, i'm content to let the early adopters take it in the shorts first.


My tastes might be 3d but my wallet is only 2d anymore.


----------



## rto




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18317833
> 
> 
> Actually there was a huge resistance to HDTV in the early days. People were saying that NTSC was good enough, especially if it could be seen as component video in the home, and then once DVDs could be displayed in 480p, then that was considered good enough by a large portion of this forum. Only a handful of us bothered with D-Theater which was JVC's version of DVHS that allowed us to watch full 1920X1080 HD movies in the home, which tells you that hardly anyone cared about video quality--even here. There was a huge resistance here when HDMI was announced. Early adopters had sets that only had component or firewire connections. Mitsubishi had a whole setup that used firewire to communicate with DVHS and the TV. I'm still watching a Fujitsu plasma that looks great, but it doesn't have HDMI. So we all get angry when the standards change right after we bought in, but I am surprised how many here want everyone else to not to be able to have 3D just because they aren't ready to upgrade themselves. Understand, standards are going to change--if you think HDMI 1.4a is the final version, you are kidding yourself. Eventually there will be an HDMI 2.X and 3.X. At some point you buy in and enjoy your setups as long as you want. Later this year you will be able to buy a 3D Blu-ray player that works on a 3D TV. If you have DirecTV, you will get three HD channels. I feel safe that if I buy in THIS YEAR, that I'll get years of good 3D entertainment even with minor standards changes. I understand that my new 3D TV will not get 3D TV over the air---because there are no standards for it yet and there may never be any. However, I would never come on this forum and campaign to keep it away from other people just because I'm not ready to upgrade.



Weird, but my experience in the early days of HDTV was apparently quite different from yours. Nearly all of the _early adopters_ I knew or had any discussions with, expressed unbridled enthusiasm for hi-def, though teething pains and relatively slow mass-adoption were obvious issues going forward, just as the format war served as an impediment to mass-adoption during the launch of HDM.


In a sense, D-Theater was an interim, backwards step in terms of technological advancement, and I think most people recognized that. I certainly had no interest in buying into any newly introduced _tape_-based format once optical discs became de rigueur. IMO, HDMI has been a bad practical joke on consumers, with every new iteration rendering multiple generations of equipment obsolete every few years. Single-cable connections really advance convenience only so long as handshake/compatibility issues are completely transparent, and we all know they're anything but.....however, I'm certainly not involved in any kind of campaign to stave-off 3D, nor am I sufficiently delusional to imagine that any attempt I or any other individual might make would have an iota of meaningful effect one way or the other.


I'm ready to upgrade my projector. I could wait a bit longer for a


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18317999
> 
> 
> You didn't mention sports, which probably will be the biggest draw for 3D.
> 
> 
> Looking at all the announced 3D BD's - they are all CGI cartoons.



Unless I'm mistaken, the preferred target audience for any new tech product on the basis of disposable income is males 18 to 35...? And what does 3D 'enhance' most that they might like? How about live sports, video games, and "adult video"? _No brainer..._


----------



## rto




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18317868
> 
> 
> Auto 3D displays are years away from reaching consumers. Some say 7 to 10. LOL - you may see 4K introduced before Auto 3D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we have yet to compare the 3D you see wearing glasses versus the 3D you see from an Auto 3D. You can't assume that Auto 3D is better just because there are no glasses to wear.
> 
> 
> You weren't here in 1999 were you? I was, under a different name. We STILL had "heavy" discussions about LD versus DVD on PQ and AQ.



How long had LD been languishing in a videophile, niche market, before DVD utterly dwarfed that format's market penetration in relatively short-order? Volumetric displays may not be right around the corner, and no one can say whether or not they'll ultimately supplant 3D with glasses. However, it's a an extremely difficult proposition to argue in the abstract that 3D with a requirement for glasses > 3D with no such requirement. If a majority of consumers find 3D with glasses as compelling as they did movies on inexpensive CD-sized optical media, it's success is assured, but I'll personally be sitting out the early-adopter phase of this particular technology.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rto* /forum/post/18318653
> 
> 
> How long had LD been languishing in a videophile, niche market, before DVD utterly dwarfed that format's market penetration in relatively short-order?



You missed my point. 2 years after the intro of DVD (and LD was pretty much dead) there were still proponents of LD here at AVS. AVS can be a microcosm. LOL - I just provided a link to a list of all MUSE LD's because there is a thread about them.



> Quote:
> Volumetric displays may not be right around the corner, and no one can say whether or not they'll ultimately supplant 3D with glasses. However, it's a an extremely difficult proposition to argue in the abstract that 3D with a requirement for glasses > 3D with no such requirement. If a majority of consumers find 3D with glasses as compelling as they did movies on inexpensive CD-sized optical media, it's success is assured, but I'll personally be sitting out the early-adopter phase of this particular technology.



What works for you is good for you and visa versa for me. I will be an EA for 3DTV.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rto* /forum/post/18318653
> 
> 
> How long had LD been languishing in a videophile, niche market, before DVD utterly dwarfed that format's market penetration in relatively short-order? Volumetric displays may not be right around the corner, and no one can say whether or not they'll ultimately supplant 3D with glasses. However, it's a an extremely difficult proposition to argue in the abstract that 3D with a requirement for glasses > 3D with no such requirement. If a majority of consumers find 3D with glasses as compelling as they did movies on inexpensive CD-sized optical media, it's success is assured, but I'll personally be sitting out the early-adopter phase of this particular technology.



Perhaps you'll sit this one out, or perhaps you won't. In the coming months there are going to be lots of threads and posts from people watching great 3D at home, and it's going to be tempting for a lot of people here to jump in. Of course all 3D won't be equal--some will look great and some will look really bad---just like HDTV today. It's also really going to be hard to measure how successful it is. Is it going to be the number of 3D glasses sold, or the number of 3D Blu-rays sold, or just the number of 3D TVs? In a couple of years almost every TV will be 3D, so does that mean it's a success, or do you somehow have to measure how much 3D is being watched on those sets? I think what will happen is that for 90% of viewing, people will still watch 2D. But every once in a while there will be compelling content in 3D, and I'm glad that I will have the technolgy to watch it. Sports, porn, and good 3D movies will be the driving force, and I think it will be considered a success even if people still watch 2D a majority of the time.


----------



## zoro

lcd/led were not even primed that they side tracked every one into lcd. and ofcouse panasonic got second lease of life to its plasma technology by adding 3D gimmickari


----------



## rto




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18318865
> 
> 
> Perhaps you'll sit this one out, or perhaps you won't. In the coming months there are going to be lots of threads and posts from people watching great 3D at home, and it's going to be tempting for a lot of people here to jump in. Of course all 3D won't be equal--some will look great and some will look really bad---just like HDTV today. It's also really going to be hard to measure how successful it is. Is it going to be the number of 3D glasses sold, or the number of 3D Blu-rays sold, or just the number of 3D TVs? In a couple of years almost every TV will be 3D, so does that mean it's a success, or do you somehow have to measure how much 3D is being watched on those sets? I think what will happen is that for 90% of viewing, people will still watch 2D. But every once in a while there will be compelling content in 3D, and I'm glad that I will have the technolgy to watch it. Sports, porn, and good 3D movies will be the driving force, and I think it will be considered a success even if people still watch 2D a majority of the time.



I'm pretty confident I'll be content to watch movies in good old fashioned 2D until the state of the 3D-with-glasses FP art is price/performance equivalent to the level of excellence available in the best projectors currently on the market.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blacklion* /forum/post/18317956
> 
> 
> Its not just about resistance to new technological advances or envy of other consumers. Its about getting tired and fed up of being taken for granted and/or a ride by Hollywood studios and CE companies.
> 
> 
> And then, there's the content issue. I can easily see how video games, action flicks and sci fi/fantasy genre movies will benefit from 3D. Ditto nature documentaries. I would like though for someone to explain to me how exactly screen adaptations of Shakespeare - 'Hamlet', 'Othello' or 'Merchant of Venice' or other types of drama movies - indy/arthouse and European movies - would benefit from rendition in 3D.



And I'd like for someone to explain to me how exactly an immersive experience like 3D won't be embraced by filmmakers of every kind to enhance the emotional experience of storytelling. I've read just about every word Shakespeare ever wrote, and I can't wait for gifted filmmakers to deliver that emotional depth in 3D. The last thing I expect is to see a lot of knives flying out of the screen. That's where some peoples' imaginations seem to begin and end, when it comes to thinking about how 3D can be used.


----------



## zoro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/18319354
> 
> 
> And I'd like for someone to explain to me how exactly an immersive experience like 3D won't be embraced by filmmakers of every kind to enhance the emotional experience of storytelling. I've read just about every word Shakespeare ever wrote, and I can't wait for gifted filmmakers to deliver that emotional depth in 3D. The last thing I expect is to see a lot of knives flying out of the screen. That's where some peoples' imaginations seem to begin and end, when it comes to thinking about how 3D can be used.



Kill Bill in 3D lol


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zoro* /forum/post/18319680
> 
> 
> Kill Bill in 3D lol


_. . . much less frightening than *Microsoft Bob 3D*!_


----------



## jbug




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/18319354
> 
> 
> And I'd like for someone to explain to me how exactly an immersive experience like 3D won't be embraced by filmmakers of every kind to enhance the emotional experience of storytelling. I've read just about every word Shakespeare ever wrote, and I can't wait for gifted filmmakers to deliver that emotional depth in 3D. The last thing I expect is to see a lot of knives flying out of the screen. That's where some peoples' imaginations seem to begin and end, when it comes to thinking about how 3D can be used.



Nice common sense evaluation. Some movies (Final Destination 3D for example) cry out for stuff popping out and others just have the nice seperation. I'm going along as an EA and I too look forward to some imaginative ways of using 3D by directors who have imagination.


----------



## blacklion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/18319354
> 
> 
> And I'd like for someone to explain to me how exactly an immersive experience like 3D won't be embraced by filmmakers of every kind to enhance the emotional experience of storytelling. I've read just about every word Shakespeare ever wrote, and I can't wait for gifted filmmakers to deliver that emotional depth in 3D. The last thing I expect is to see a lot of knives flying out of the screen. That's where some peoples' imaginations seem to begin and end, when it comes to thinking about how 3D can be used.



Thanks but no thanks. I have zero interest in immersive Shakespeare. My BBC DVDs will only be taken away from my cold, dead hands.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jbug* /forum/post/18320353
> 
> 
> Nice common sense evaluation. Some movies (Final Destination 3D for example) cry out for stuff popping out and others just have the nice seperation. I'm going along as an EA and I too look forward to some imaginative ways of using 3D by directors who have imagination.



Yes, one of these days 3D will be just one more tool in a filmmaker's kit, no more or less appropriate for personal dramas than any other type of film.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blacklion* /forum/post/18320444
> 
> 
> Thanks but no thanks. I have zero interest in immersive Shakespeare. My BBC DVDs will only be taken away from my cold, dead hands.



Do you like Shakespeare in color?


Why not with depth of field then?


I think that period pieces and stage performances have an enormous amount to gain from *proper* 3D use. Think of "The Queen". When she's sitting silenly in those lavishly decorated rooms, and the cinematographer wants you to feel like you're in the room with her, so he places all of the object detail in fine view so you can see the intricate lace patterns and the texture of the silk wall-paper... to then be able to see *into* the picture, to see the dimension and depth of the room, would go even one step further to adding intimacy to that scene.


And for stage performances... having a real sense of depth would create a visceral reality to watching the performers move on the stage... which would really add to the emotional impact of the delivery.


We need to shed ourselves of the myth that 3D is somehow only something gimmicky that will assist shock films or only something that would apply to action films. Would we say that color only really applies to fun films like cartoons and the Wizard of Oz?


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/18320527
> 
> 
> Yes, one of these days 3D will be just one more tool in a filmmaker's kit, no more or less appropriate for personal dramas than any other type of film.



Agreed.


I think that the *intimacy* that 3D could produce has yet to be explored. Making a room fee like a room... making an actor look like he or she is really positioned in a real space, it's like a high end audio system with proper imaging and front-to-back soundstaging. That lends intimacy and emotional impact to good music recordings of all genres. Why not images as well?


----------



## blacklion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/18320574
> 
> 
> Do you like Shakespeare in color?
> 
> 
> Why not with depth of field then?
> 
> 
> I think that period pieces and stage performances have an enormous amount to gain from *proper* 3D use. Think of "The Queen". When she's sitting silenly in those lavishly decorated rooms, and the cinematographer wants you to feel like you're in the room with her, so he places all of the object detail in fine view so you can see the intricate lace patterns and the texture of the silk wall-paper... to then be able to see *into* the picture, to see the dimension and depth of the room, would go even one step further to adding intimacy to that scene.
> 
> 
> And for stage performances... having a real sense of depth would create a visceral reality to watching the performers move on the stage... which would really add to the emotional impact of the delivery.
> 
> 
> We need to shed ourselves of the myth that 3D is somehow only something gimmicky that will assist shock films or only something that would apply to action films. Would we say that color only really applies to fun films like cartoons and the Wizard of Oz?



You offer an interesting, even probable argument. Thanks for your response.


Another question if you don't mind. Given that many indy/arthouse, European and Asian (bar wuxia) movies have not made it to 2D blu-ray, what are the odds that the studios will be willing to invest millions in period dramas that do not necessarily appeal to the 18-35 yr old male demographic? Closer home - can you see a 'Babel' or 'The Last Emperor' in 3D anytime soon?


I'm told BD licensing fees are one reason why indy and foreign filmmakers largely stay away from BD. Will 3D licensing fees not have similar effects?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blacklion* /forum/post/18320444
> 
> 
> Thanks but no thanks. I have zero interest in immersive Shakespeare. My BBC DVDs will only be taken away from my cold, dead hands.



I've seen multiple productions of many Shakespearean plays, on film and the stage. Some have been good, some not so much. I doubt, when I see a great Shakespearean play in 3D, it will make me think any more or less of brilliant performances of the past. I know I won't be calling out, "Give me 2D or give me death!"


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blacklion* /forum/post/18320668
> 
> 
> You offer an interesting, even probable argument. Thanks for your response.
> 
> 
> Another question if you don't mind. Given that many indy/arthouse, European and Asian (bar wuxia) movies have not made it to 2D blu-ray, what are the odds that the studios will be willing to invest millions in period dramas that do not necessarily appeal to the 18-35 yr old male demographic? Closer home - can you see a 'Babel' or 'The Last Emperor' in 3D anytime soon?
> 
> 
> I'm told BD licensing fees are one reason why indy and foreign filmmakers largely stay away from BD. Will 3D licensing fees not have similar effects?



3D has no "licensing fees"... it just takes two cameras instead of one (or a single stereoscopic camera) and because such hardware is relatively rare at the moment, it's more expensive to shoot a film in 3D. This will change over time however, and in a few years many productions will be able to afford to film in 3D if they so choose, though naturally an analog film will use twice the film stock for stereo, but digital 3D films will cost almost the same to produce as digital 2D once the architecture is in place.


BTW, last I heard some changes were going on to make Blu-ray licensing more affordable. I'd love to get all my BBC classics on blu-ray! Right now my period Blu-rays only include Pride and Prejudice (the BBC 6 hour version), Howard's End (Emma Thompson), and A Room With A View. Would love to see that collection grow by leaps and bounds... would love to have Emma... both the Miramax version and the BBC version. I'd never say so myself, but some of my best friends do say I have quite the movie collection.










One complication with BBC material is that Blu-ray never incorporated a 25 fps option, which IMO was a bad move as 1080i50 isn't a perfect answer.


----------



## Lee Stewart

*List of Upcoming 3D Movies !*

http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2007/0...3d-movies.html


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/18320710
> 
> 
> I've seen multiple productions of many Shakespearean plays, on film and the stage. Some have been good, some not so much. I doubt, when I see a great Shakespearean play in 3D, it will make me think any more or less of brilliant performances of the past. I know I won't be calling out, "Give me 2D or give me death!"



A good performance is a good performance, and a bad performance is a bad performance. That's true whether you're watching a stage play live, or whether you're watching a rented VHS copy, or whether you're watching on overcompressed cable, or whether you're watching on DVD or in 1080p.


Good and bad performances have been what they are through every stage of our progression to give more transparency to our media and to give the creative film team more tools at their disposal. 3D is no different. And just like all of the other aspects of video delivery that we care about, used properly, it can get us *closer* to the performance. And if the performance is a good one, then getting closer is a good thing.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/18320585
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> I think that the *intimacy* that 3D could produce has yet to be explored. Making a room fee like a room... making an actor look like he or she is really positioned in a real space, it's like a high end audio system with proper imaging and front-to-back soundstaging. That lends intimacy and emotional impact to good music recordings of all genres. Why not images as well?



I remember the first time I stopped to think about what 3D might be able to do for a truly intimate moment in a film. It was a single shot, without any real context. I pictured a person in deep emotional pain, turning in bed at night (toward the camera), and sobbing. It would take a gifted actor, able to express real grief, to pull it off, but it was a shot where I could see 3D seizing the viewer in a powerful way. Simple shot, quiet tears - real intimacy.


----------



## cctvtech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18320731
> 
> *List of Upcoming 3D Movies !*
> 
> http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2007/0...3d-movies.html



What a great group of films! Many potential Academy Award contenders!


----------



## blacklion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18320731
> 
> *List of Upcoming 3D Movies !*
> 
> http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2007/0...3d-movies.html



@ Joe Clark and DaVID Boulet


Any comments on this list? Seems to me that at least 80% plus of the listed movies are sci fi/fantasy/action/horror/animation.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blacklion* /forum/post/18322529
> 
> 
> @ Joe Clark and DaVID Boulet
> 
> 
> Any comments on this list? Seems to me that at least 80% plus of the listed movies are sci fi/fantasy/action/horror/animation.



Of course they are. Most people, including the filmmakers, haven't broken out of that mindset yet. That's not to say they won't. Somewhere, the storyboards are already being drawn for a great 3D drama. We had glimpses of it in Avatar, though not nearly as many as I would have liked.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blacklion* /forum/post/18322529
> 
> 
> @ Joe Clark and DaVID Boulet
> 
> 
> Any comments on this list? Seems to me that at least 80% plus of the listed movies are sci fi/fantasy/action/horror/animation.



Hollywood is still firmly entrenched in what genre of films should be shot in 3D. As you can see - nothing has changed . . . yet


Just toss out the shorts and IMAX docs:

http://www.3dmovielist.com/list.html 


" The more things change . . . . the more they remain the same "


----------



## walford

Neither list lists FullHD 3D BR disks conforming to the new Blu-Ray 3D specification. they both appear to list disk containg other 3D formats which do not provide for Full screen camera souced 1080p content to both eyes.


----------



## Lee Stewart

New issue in society . . . 3D glasses envy . . .



"Hey Joe - bought a new Panny 3DTV!"


"Me too! Great isn't it?"


"The best! Also got me and the family a mess of those new XpanD X104's. Titanium man! You barely even know they are there."


"All I got are the Samsung's. Everyone looks like either Buddy Holley or Roy Orbison







"


----------



## Lee Stewart

*3D Non-sense . . .*


Panasonic sells out of all their 3DTV's in the USA. . .


And there isn't a single bit of technical info on any of their 3D products on their website.


Neither their 3DTV's nor their 3D BD players:

http://www.panasonic.com/


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18338834
> 
> *3D Non-sense . . .*
> 
> 
> Panasonic sells out of all their 3DTV's in the USA. . .
> 
> 
> And there isn't a single bit of technical info on any of their 3D products on their website.
> 
> 
> Neither their 3DTV's nor their 3D BD players:
> 
> http://www.panasonic.com/



Here are a few possibilities:


1. Panasonic underestimated how many people want 3D sets - to the extent that they sold out before they were even scheduled to go on display in most stores.


2. Panasonic made only 5 or 6 3D sets because of a typo on the order form.


3. Someone opened the 3D starting gate a few months early, and the crazy Panasonic and Samsung jockeys couldn't be stopped.


4. The multi-city 3D tour that Panasonic just took on the road will serve mainly to infuriate disillusioned early adopters as it wends its way around the country. Gasoline prices will rise as Molotov cocktails are prepared.


5. Panasonic decided that for its 3D campaign to make any sense, it ought to match a total lack of 3D Blu-ray titles with a total lack of 3D displays.


6. There's no such thing as 3D. It's really just a mass hallucination created by illusionist Lee Stewart.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/18338924
> 
> 
> Here are a few possibilities:
> 
> 
> 1. Panasonic underestimated how many people want 3D sets - to the extent that they sold out before they were even scheduled to go on display in most stores.
> 
> 
> 2. Panasonic made only 5 or 6 3D sets because of a typo on the order form.
> 
> 
> 3. Someone opened the 3D starting gate a few months early, and the crazy Panasonic and Samsung jockeys couldn't be stopped.
> 
> 
> 4. The multi-city 3D tour that Panasonic just took on the road will serve mainly to infuriate disillusioned early adopters as it wends its way around the country. Gasoline prices will rise as Molotov cocktails are prepared.
> 
> 
> 5. Panasonic decided that for its 3D campaign to make any sense, it ought to match a total lack of 3D Blu-ray titles with a total lack of 3D displays.
> 
> *6. There's no such thing as 3D. It's really just a mass hallucination created by illusionist Lee Stewart*.










And now . . . for my next trick . . .


----------



## R Johnson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/18338924
> 
> 
> .... 4. The multi-city 3D tour that Panasonic just took on the road will serve mainly to infuriate disillusioned early adopters as it wends its way around the country. Gasoline prices will rise as Molotov cocktails are prepared. ...



I attended the Panasonic tour here in Chicago and have a nice (6 page) glossy flyer (650-0218437) with specifications. It shows web links: http://panasonic.com/3d/ and http://panasonic.net/avc/viera/3d


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Johnson* /forum/post/18342965
> 
> 
> I attended the Panasonic tour here in Chicago and have a nice (6 page) glossy flyer (650-0218437) with specifications. It shows web links: http://panasonic.com/3d/ and http://panasonic.net/avc/viera/3d



LOL - it says BDT350 in your second link and AFAIK, they are really the BDT300


Still no downloadable manuals on any of the products.


----------



## R Johnson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18343476
> 
> 
> LOL - it says BDT350 in your second link and AFAIK, they are really the BDT300 ...(



The printed brochure shows DMP-BDT350.

I did not look closely at the units they had on display (or in use?).


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Johnson* /forum/post/18343522
> 
> 
> The printed brochure shows DMP-BDT350.
> 
> I did not look closely at the units they had on display (or in use?).



The 350 ships next month - the one with DLNA in it.


----------



## discodol




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Leetthal* /forum/post/17868096
> 
> 
> lmao, i wonder how 3D Bluray porn will be like



It will be the same as when gay porn first hit the big screens of Hollywood in the 70s, everyone in the first 3 rows got issued umbrellas!!!


----------



## AndrewStrick

3D.


I started by reading the first 3 pages of this thread and got lost in all the fan boy hype and the constant arguments so i skipped to the end.


My 2c?


I just bought a "new" (ie 10 yrs of development) Samsung Plasma. I bought it knowing it would be one of the last developments along the current generation of televisions. I thought Oled or Laser may be my next one, but i didnt even consider a 3D set.


I saw Avatar and have two coments:

3D is friggin awsome. I will invest when the time comes









Avatar sux. Crap story etc


3D Porn? brings new meaning to the old south park line right " It's coming right for us!) haha, they may need to issue safety glasses.


----------



## Kingcarcas

Did so many people complain when movies got color?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kingcarcas* /forum/post/18386860
> 
> 
> Did so many people complain when movies got color?



Sure they did. That's why that color thing never caught on. Thank God we still have all the things we love so much - gas lamps, horse and buggy, VHS, polio.


----------



## ssjLancer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kingcarcas* /forum/post/18386860
> 
> 
> Did so many people complain when movies got color?



Only when they found out they had to wear glasses to see it..


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ssjLancer* /forum/post/18387023
> 
> 
> Only when they found out they had to wear glasses to see it..



Absolutely. The same thing happened when they tried to foist those polio shots onto people. Folks had too much common sense to put up with the inconvenience of an injection, just to avoid polio. The benefits would never outweigh the trauma. Same thing with 3D and glasses. I shiver just thinking about it. People aren't buying that nonsense at the theaters, and they'll never go for it at home.


----------



## ssjLancer

Your sarcasm was working great until you compared polio shots to 3d glasses. The color analogy wasnt working out?


----------



## Joseph Clark

Too over the top? Sorry, it was early and I was still bleary-eyed when I made that post.


----------



## chaz01




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AJSJones* /forum/post/17924050
> 
> 
> Even then the "I hate glasses" people will complain that you can see through the hologram , and then complain they can't watch it in a brightly lit room



...then it won't sell...


----------



## David Susilo

no, people don't complain when movies got colour (my grandfather was a commercial cinema owner), but as chaz01 mentioned, it took quite a while before "in color" finally turned into "in good, natural looking, not poke-you-in-the-eye color".


However, my biggest beef against 3D is that the content provider haven't been able to master HD yet and now they already want to jump to a different technology. Half @$$ed HD, followed with half @$$ed 3D, and with broadcast is half HD which makes it only "quarter @$$ed HD"







.


----------



## chaz01

People didn't complain when movies were in color but the transition to tv was shaky early on and took time to perfect.


Most posts are not complaining about movies in 3d, just about tv going to 3d.


Also, the color conversion didn't require headgear. Big difference. I did hear of a screen attachment that was tinted blue on the top and green on the bottom. Laughable if true but an early attempt that eventually lead to improvements. Just wouldn't be interested in watching it.


As David points out, the last greatest thing has yet to be completed. Majority of my tv channels are still in 4:3 480i even with digital mandate (which was balked at by the industry if I remember correctly. Poor folks would be left without TV! OMG! The sky will fall! It's a travesty!). 1080i vs 720p debate nullified with intro to 1080p. where are the 1080p tv channels?


Credibility a bit shaky. And the glasses....


----------



## Ken H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chaz01* /forum/post/18433604
> 
> 
> 
> As David points out, the last greatest thing has yet to be completed.



This is true, and it is a real concern. HD can be a lot better than it sometimes is, but the market place is as much to blame as the industry. After all, who bought into the 'more HD channels is better HD' theory?


Q. When was the last time you heard of consumers petitioning HD providers to reduce the number of HD channels in exchange for better HD on fewer channels?

A. Never. Everybody wants more, and when push comes to shove, HD image quality suffers.



> Quote:
> Majority of my tv channels are still in 4:3 480i even with digital mandate (which was balked at by the industry if I remember correctly.



Because the majority of content was created before HD existed, and a lot of it (video based) can never be native HD. And the TV industry didn't balk at digital TV.



> Quote:
> 1080i vs 720p debate nullified with intro to 1080p. where are the 1080p tv channels?



Although 1080p is part of the existing ATSC standards, no one ever expected it would be in use except for film based sources at some point in the future; the frame rate is way to slow for live action. At least for the time being, MPEG2 simply doesn't have the capability to deliver that much signal. Maybe it never will.



> Quote:
> Credibility a bit shaky.



In what sense? HDTV was never part of the government mandated change to Digital TV.



> Quote:
> And the glasses....



Lots of people wear glasses. I'd bet even you do, in the sun.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chaz01* /forum/post/18433604
> 
> 
> I did hear of a screen attachment that was tinted blue on the top and green on the bottom.



I remember those! My family had one. I think I remember it because I had to have the point of it explained to me (which was irritating).


----------



## Lee Stewart

*Report: Top Rated Ads Indicate Consumer Interest in 3DTV*



> Quote:
> A Samsung Electronics ad for a new 3D LED television ranked No. 1 among the TV spots for creative effectiveness for the quarter ended March 31, according to a new report.
> 
> 
> The ad, which scored 736 points out of a possible 950, including 759 points for persuasion and 677 points for watchability, beat out an advertising campaign for the Apple iPad, according to Ace Metrix, a Los Angeles-based media measurement company.


 http://www.homemediamagazine.com/3-d...est-3dtv-18967


----------



## David Susilo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chaz01* /forum/post/18433604
> 
> 
> Also, the color conversion didn't require headgear. Big difference. I did hear of a screen attachment that was tinted blue on the top and green on the bottom. Laughable if true but an early attempt that eventually lead to improvements. Just wouldn't be interested in watching it.



I've never heard of blue-top and green-bottom, but my (parents') first colour TV comes with tinted blue screen (can't remember the brand, it was easily about 30+ years ago) and it actually makes the picture look weirder. We took it off.


----------



## Steve S

Those complaining about glasses should read about what might have been in regard to color tv:

http://www.davidsarnoff.org/jac-maintext.html 


Here are some pictures of these early "color wheel" sets, the bottom one's especially interesting--shows how big the color wheel would have been for a 30" tube set--it actually required a trough in the floor below the set.

http://www.earlytelevision.org/cbs_color_system.html


----------



## Lee Stewart

*Megascreen Magnifier for larger TVs*

http://www.optimalowvision.co.uk/pro...token=51952876 


Also available for Small and Medium TVs


They used to sell something like this 50 years ago for 13" round tube TV's. it was a convex lens - you filled it with water and stuck it on the front of your TV to make the images look bigger.


----------



## chaz01

Informative and interesting. Thanks.


----------



## David Susilo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18437268
> 
> *Megascreen Magnifier for larger TVs*
> 
> http://www.optimalowvision.co.uk/pro...token=51952876
> 
> 
> Also available for Small and Medium TVs
> 
> 
> They used to sell something like this 50 years ago for 13" round tube TV's. it was a convex lens - you filled it with water and stuck it on the front of your TV to make the images look bigger.



Which 25 years ago the "technology" changed into fresnel lens.


However, these are not "technology" per-se, just gimmickry... just like 3D-at-home


----------



## obveron

I am STOKED for 3DTVs. There is plenty of content, they're called VIDEO GAMES!!

I'm still on my CRT 1080i TV and I haven't upgraded to flat panel because I've been waiting for decent 3d.


I'm going to keep waiting until a new HDMI specification comes out with mandatory 1080p60 framepacking (very dissapointed 1.4 didn't do this), or alternatively a true 1080p120 signal (as already done with dual link DVI).


glasses don't bother me. actually auto-stereoscopic displays bother me due to the narrow viewing space.


----------



## chaz01




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *obveron* /forum/post/18447200
> 
> 
> I am STOKED for 3DTVs. There is plenty of content, they're called VIDEO GAMES!!
> 
> I'm still on my CRT 1080i TV and I haven't upgraded to flat panel because I've been waiting for decent 3d.
> 
> 
> I'm going to keep waiting until a new HDMI specification comes out with mandatory 1080p60 framepacking (very dissapointed 1.4 didn't do this), or alternatively a true 1080p120 signal (as already done with dual link DVI).
> 
> 
> glasses don't bother me. actually auto-stereoscopic displays bother me due to the narrow viewing space.



As someone who's been foo fooing 3d out here, and someone who also likes gaming, I have to admit the short 3d dune buggy racing game demo at the Sony store did look awesome. I would even don the dumb glasses for game playing. This is probably the venue that will launch 3d.


----------



## cctvtech

Personally, I'm waiting for 4D TV Forget 3D, 4D Avatar Movie In Korea .


"The 4D movie adds an additional 30 special effects to the 162 minute movie. These new special effects include such things as breeze and wind effect, mist, laser lights, moving seats and the smell of explosives that sync up with the onscreen action." I love the smell of gunpowder in the morning (sic)!


----------



## rmz76




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GobbityGotz* /forum/post/17861750
> 
> 
> The tech is still so primitive. When I can sit in my living room and watch "3d" without glasses I might bite. The tech now is way too infantile.



You mean like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3lDoVwEmts


----------



## Lee Stewart

IMO - this announcement qualifies (







) for THIS thread:

*SRS Unveils Audio Solution For 3DTVs*



> Quote:
> Santa Ana, Calif. - SRS Labs introduced Thursday its CircleCinema 3D advanced audio solution for 3D HDTV systems.
> 
> 
> CircleCinema 3D is said to be the first audio solution designed exclusively at SRS' Advanced Rendering Lab (ARL).
> 
> 
> The company said that to deliver 3D audio, ARL engineers equipped CircleCinema 3D with the ability to render "an immersive three-dimensional soundstage utilizing a combination of state-of-the-art SRS surround and adaptive tuning technologies."


 http://www.twice.com/article/451510-..._For_3DTVs.php


----------

